from the November 14, 2006 edition -
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1114/p20s01-lifp.html


Backstory: Everyone's going conkers

Will a traditional, 'nutty' rite of British childhood fall to modern
'antirisk' culture?

By Brendan O'Neill | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

LONDON AND NORTHAMPTONSHIRE, ENGLAND

"Seamus Lynch, 10, leans back and hurls a sturdy half-branch into a heavily
pregnant horse-chestnut tree. It slices through leaves and twigs, sending
prickly green cases raining to the ground.

"Ow!" squeaks his younger sister Shauna, when one of the pricks penetrates
her protective gloves, stabbing her forefinger. But she forges on, scooping
the bounty into a tattered grocery bag.

Later, we split open the husks and behold the round, gleaming treasures
inside: mahogany-brown chestnuts, or "conkers," as we call them in Britain,
of all shapes and sizes. Seamus is looking for the shiniest, the toughest,
the one most likely to help him win the war of the playground and respect
among his classmates.

"Here!" he shouts, plucking up a big, bulbous chestnut . " This is my
conker."

Beneath the chestnut boughs, in this gray, gravelly north London alleyway,
normally the haunt of cats or clapped-out old cars, Seamus and Shauna
perform a rite of British childhood. Like countless kids around the country
each fall, they're conker-hunting - looking for "weapons" with which to do
battle in the game of the same name: conkers.

This is the same spot my five brothers and I scored conkers 20 years ago. A
lot has changed since then, though. The tree looks more haggard, as if
finally distressed by the annualtroops of children stealing its fruit for
war.

But perhaps more ominous, today the cherished childhood game of conkers,
itself, is under threat. From the outright ban of the rough-and-tough game
to chopping down the ancient chestnut trees that tempt conkers players, the
health-and-safety culture has sparked impassioned debate.

Conkers proponents suggest that to deny children of this tradition is to rob
them of the independence, grit, and sportsmanship instilled in generations
of British boys and girls before them.

Opponents - largely single actors on town and school council stages and not
an organized force - do not share one overriding concern, but rather attach
various concerns for kids to the game. And they have a lower tolerance for
liability and bodily injury than previous generations did.

***

Conkers has been around for 200 years. It evolved from a game called
"conquerors," originally played with snail shells dangling from string. By
the 20th century, the horse-chestnut version had come into play. Today, the
game remains as common among British school kids as marbles once was among
their American counterparts. In the autumn horse-chestnut season, British
playgrounds ring with the sound of conkers clacking and being stamped.

It's a fight to the death - of the conker. Having picked your conker, you
bore a hole in it with a skewer or screwdriver, thread a shoelace through,
then tie a knot at the end to hold the nut in place. Then battle begins.
It's a clash between two players. Each takes a turn bashing the other's
conker with his own. One player lets his conker dangle; the other wraps his
own shoelace around one hand, pulls his conker back with the other hand, and
then - bam! - takes fire at his opponent's conker. This continues until one
conker has been smashed.

If your conker is knocked from its shoelace your opponent can yell
"Stampsy!" - an invitation to spectators to stamp your conker into the
earth. If shoelaces become entangled, someone usually screams "Tugsy!"-
giving rise to a ruthless tug of war to see who can yank his opponent's
conker from its lace.

Victory can be sweet, earning a kid respect in the schoolyard. A conker that
beats another is christened a "one-er"; if it beats two it's a "two-er," and
so on. Best of all, your conker takes on the score and credentials of all
those it beats. I vividly recall the kudos that came my way when, at age 8,
my "one-er," a pretty pasty, feeble conker, yanked from this same alleyway
tree in 1982, somehow beat a "ten-er." Overnight I had an "eleven-er," and
it was the talk of the school.

Seamus hopes the tree today has yielded another surprise star chestnut that
will make him King of Conkers. That is, "if the teachers let us play," he
says, buffing his conker with his sleeve.

His school is the latest in Britain said to be on the verge of banning the
game, in what is starting to look like a national purge of conkers.

While everyone knows someone hurt in a conkers game - much as in any
childhood game - there are no official statistics on conker hunting or
playing accidents. Yet because it involves climbing trees, using sharp
implements, and taking part in stormy playground battles, it has earned the
ire of some town and school officials.

This fall, Newcastle City Council in northeast England took the
extraordinary step of sending cranes to strip bare horse-chestnut trees to
prevent climbing for conkers.

"By taking the conkers off the problem trees it reduces the chances of kids
getting hurt," reasons Steven Charlton of Newcastle's environmental
services.

Last year a school in Cumbria banned conkers on the grounds that chestnuts
are a nut-allergy threat. A school in Carlisle insisted that children wear
goggles while playing. In 2004, South Tyneside Borough Council chopped down
chestnut trees to prevent conker hunts. And I recently discovered that my
old elementary school banned the game because kids were using the metal
fence spikes to drill holes in conkers.

One survey of playground life in schools in central England suggests that
individual teachers, afraid of lawsuits, are unilaterally banning conkers.
The researcher, Sarah Thomson of Keele University, concluded: "The lunch
break is now in danger of becoming a sterile, joyless time as schools
overreact to an increasingly litigious society."

***

"[Conkers opposition] has reached absurd levels," charges Conn Iggulden,
author of "The Dangerous Book for Boys," which has hit bestseller lists here
with praise for challenging the "antirisk culture" that some say is stifling
kids. The book advises how to win at conkers, soccer, and fishing, as well
as how to skip rocks across water and experiment on insects.

"If we wrap our children in cotton wool all the time, then they will never
develop the skills and independence required to become fully adult. I say
let them climb trees, and let them play conkers," Mr. Iggulden tells me
during a break in his duties as a judge at the World Conker Championships
which were held last month in Ashton, a hamlet in Northamptonshire, England.

The event draws competitors for the crowns of King and Queen of Conkers from
as far as the US and Latvia.

"We are bonkers about conkers. And anyone who tries to take this sport away
from us will have a fight on his hands," says David Jakins, a competitor who
has played conkers for perhaps more than 60 years.

A newcomer to the sport, James Monroe Miller, cheers on the American team:
"It would be a shame if conkers fell victim to today's politics of risk
aversion. It is such a quintessentially English sport." He pauses. "Having
said that," adds the Baltimore native working for the US military in
Britain,"I want the American team to whup you Brits today."

***

Seamus and Shauna return home, their bag bulging with the spoils of our
conker hunt. They didn't get injured(except for a minor scrape on Shauna's
finger), but they do look refreshed, weather-hardened, ready for battle
tomorrow.

And that surely beats staying indoors and watching TV.

</>

Gregory Morrow wrote:

    > from the November 14, 2006 edition -
    > http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1114/p20s01-lifp.html
    >
    >
    > Backstory: Everyone's going conkers

Thanks for the inormative post, Greg! All through my
childhood I read British children's books that mentioned
"conkers" as a game. I have always been under the
impression it was simply another name for marbles. (The
Internet certainly broadens one's knowledge in unexpected
ways!)

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 10:20:16 -0700, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Gregory Morrow wrote:
    >> from the November 14, 2006 edition -
    >> http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1114/p20s01-lifp.html
    >>
    >>
    >> Backstory: Everyone's going conkers
    >Thanks for the inormative post, Greg! All through my
    >childhood I read British children's books that mentioned
    >"conkers" as a game. I have always been under the
    >impression it was simply another name for marbles. (The
    >Internet certainly broadens one's knowledge in unexpected
    >ways!)

Incidentally in these parts the conkers all fell down some weeks ago.
--

Martin

duuh when a dummy meets another

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le
message de news: [email protected]...
    > Gregory Morrow wrote:
    >> from the November 14, 2006 edition -
    >> http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1114/p20s01-lifp.html
    >> Backstory: Everyone's going conkers
    > Thanks for the inormative post, Greg! All through my childhood I read
    > British children's books that mentioned "conkers" as a game. I have
    > always been under the impression it was simply another name for marbles.
    > (The Internet certainly broadens one's knowledge in unexpected ways!)
    >

here comes the third dummy

"Martin" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email protected]...
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 10:20:16 -0700, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Gregory Morrow wrote:
    >> from the November 14, 2006 edition -
    >> http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1114/p20s01-lifp.html
    >> Backstory: Everyone's going conkers
    >Thanks for the inormative post, Greg! All through my
    >childhood I read British children's books that mentioned
    >"conkers" as a game. I have always been under the
    >impression it was simply another name for marbles. (The
    >Internet certainly broadens one's knowledge in unexpected
    >ways!)

Incidentally in these parts the conkers all fell down some weeks ago.
--

Martin

Gregory Morrow wrote:

    > "[Conkers opposition] has reached absurd levels," charges Conn Iggulden,
    > author of "The Dangerous Book for Boys," which has hit bestseller lists
    > here with praise for challenging the "antirisk culture" that some say is
    > stifling kids.

Here's hoping that there's the beginnings of a backlash. Kids are
being held back from doing things (such as walking down to the corner
shop on their own) to later and later ages. Parents are convinced
that "the roads are more dangerous these days" or that "there's more
paedophiles". The statistics don't agree, of course.


--
Something like: "ntlworld" "com" "dot" "at" "marypegg"

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 22:38:28 GMT, Mary Pegg <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Gregory Morrow wrote:
    >> "[Conkers opposition] has reached absurd levels," charges Conn Iggulden,
    >> author of "The Dangerous Book for Boys," which has hit bestseller lists
    >> here with praise for challenging the "antirisk culture" that some say is
    >> stifling kids.
    >Here's hoping that there's the beginnings of a backlash. Kids are
    >being held back from doing things (such as walking down to the corner
    >shop on their own) to later and later ages. Parents are convinced
    >that "the roads are more dangerous these days" or that "there's more
    >paedophiles". The statistics don't agree, of course.

So what are the statistics?
--

Martin

Martin wrote:

    > On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 22:38:28 GMT, Mary Pegg <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>Here's hoping that there's the beginnings of a backlash. Kids are
    >>being held back from doing things (such as walking down to the corner
    >>shop on their own) to later and later ages. Parents are convinced
    >>that "the roads are more dangerous these days" or that "there's more
    >>paedophiles". The statistics don't agree, of course.
    >
    > So what are the statistics?

Look here:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBAS...eets/D4031.xls
and here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4690160.stm

1975: 505
1992: 180
2002: 79
child pedestrian deaths per year.

And of course the biggest risk of sexual or physical assault or murder
comes from the child's own parents, followed by other family members,
then friends of the family and other adults they know. "Stranger danger"
is just so far down the list.

--
Something like: "ntlworld" "com" "dot" "at" "marypegg"

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 23:13:37 GMT, Mary Pegg <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Martin wrote:
    >> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 22:38:28 GMT, Mary Pegg <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Here's hoping that there's the beginnings of a backlash. Kids are
    >>>being held back from doing things (such as walking down to the corner
    >>>shop on their own) to later and later ages. Parents are convinced
    >>>that "the roads are more dangerous these days" or that "there's more
    >>>paedophiles". The statistics don't agree, of course.
    >>
    >> So what are the statistics?
    >Look here:
    >http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBAS...eets/D4031.xls
    >and here:
    >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4690160.stm
    >1975: 505
    >1992: 180
    >2002: 79
    >child pedestrian deaths per year.

Isn't that as much due to parents not letting their kids on the roads?
--

Martin

Martin wrote:

    > On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 23:13:37 GMT, Mary Pegg <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>Martin wrote:
    >>Look here:
    >>http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBAS...eets/D4031.xls
    >>and here:
    >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4690160.stm
    >>1975: 505
    >>1992: 180
    >>2002: 79
    >>child pedestrian deaths per year.
    >
    > Isn't that as much due to parents not letting their kids on the roads?

No, because adult deaths are down too.

--
Something like: "ntlworld" "com" "dot" "at" "marypegg"

EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) schrieb:
    >
    >
    > Gregory Morrow wrote:
    >
    >> from the November 14, 2006 edition -
    >> http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1114/p20s01-lifp.html
    >> Backstory: Everyone's going conkers
    >
    > Thanks for the inormative post, Greg! All through my childhood I read
    > British children's books that mentioned "conkers" as a game. I have
    > always been under the impression it was simply another name for marbles.
    > (The Internet certainly broadens one's knowledge in unexpected ways!)

It is remarkable that the game of conkers seems to be unknown in other
European countries, even though they also have chestnut trees (and small
boys).

T.

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 23:13:37 GMT, Mary Pegg <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >Martin wrote:
    >> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 22:38:28 GMT, Mary Pegg <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Here's hoping that there's the beginnings of a backlash. Kids are
    >>>being held back from doing things (such as walking down to the corner
    >>>shop on their own) to later and later ages. Parents are convinced
    >>>that "the roads are more dangerous these days" or that "there's more
    >>>paedophiles". The statistics don't agree, of course.
    >>
    >> So what are the statistics?
    >Look here:
    >http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBAS...eets/D4031.xls
    >and here:
    >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4690160.stm
    >1975: 505
    >1992: 180
    >2002: 79
    >child pedestrian deaths per year.
    >And of course the biggest risk of sexual or physical assault or murder
    >comes from the child's own parents, followed by other family members,
    >then friends of the family and other adults they know. "Stranger danger"
    >is just so far down the list.

Unfortunately it's pretty hard to teach kids to "watch out for uncle
.....".
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

Tom Peel wrote:
    >It is remarkable that the game of conkers
    >seems to be unknown in other European
    >countries, even though they also have
    >chestnut trees (and small boys).

I played it as a kid in the US (RI) exactly as the OP described it.
This would be in the late-50's/60's although I don't remember what we
called the game.

I talked to my mother yesterday and she remembers boys playing it in
her youth and I'm certain I recall my grandfather talking about it (he
drilled the holes in my chestnuts:).
I assume this game in my area (~Boston) dates back to British Colonial
Times?
Regards, Walter



..And Paradise Was Lost...like teardrops in the rain...

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 01:58:22 GMT, Mary Pegg <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >Martin wrot
    >>>1975: 505
    >>>1992: 180
    >>>2002: 79
    >>>child pedestrian deaths per year.
    >>
    >> Isn't that as much due to parents not letting their kids on the roads?
    >No, because adult deaths are down too.

Isn't that due to parents not going on the roads with their kids?

Runge wrote:

    > duuh when a dummy meets another


Tell us, gRunge, did you have a lonely and forelorn childhood...???

--
Best
Greg


    > "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le
    > message de news: [email protected]...
    > >
    > >
    > > Gregory Morrow wrote:
    > >
    > >> from the November 14, 2006 edition -
    > >> http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1114/p20s01-lifp.html
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> Backstory: Everyone's going conkers
    > >
    > > Thanks for the inormative post, Greg! All through my childhood I read
    > > British children's books that mentioned "conkers" as a game. I have
    > > always been under the impression it was simply another name for marbles.
    > > (The Internet certainly broadens one's knowledge in unexpected ways!)
    > >