Ostriching the truth

QUESTION Where does the notion that ostriches stick their head in the sand come from?

SOMEONE ‘hiding their head in the sand, like an ostrich’ is said to be foolishly ignoring their problem, while hoping it will magically disappear.

It is thought that the myth originated with that great Roman thinker, Pliny the Elder (AD2379). In Book 10, Chapter 1, of his Natural History he wrote: ‘They have the marvellous property of being able to [swallow] substance without distinction, but their stupidity is no less remarkable; for although the rest of their body is so large, they imagine, when they have thrust their head and neck into a bush, that the whole of their body is concealed.’

Interestingly, Pliny was not the first to mention this behaviour, for Diodorus Siculus (who lived in the 1st century BC) noted: ‘When she [the ostrich] is near being taken [by her pursuers], she thrusts her head under a shrub or some such like clover; not (as some suppose) through folly and blockishness, as if she would not see any pursuers, or be seen by them, but because her head is tenderest part of her body, she seeks to secure that part all manner of ways she can.’

There is one aspect of ostrich behaviour that comes close to burying their head in the sand. When ostriches feed, they sometimes lay their head flat on the ground to swallow sand and pebbles. The hard grit helps them to grind their food in their crop.

From a distance, the ostrich looks as if it’s burying its head in the sand.

Colin Wells, Frinton-on-Sea, Essex.

QUESTION Did US President Eisenhower come to regret not supporting the UK and France over the Suez Crisis in 1956?

IN 1956, Britain, France and Israel launched co-ordinated invasions of Egypt. The aims were to regain control of the Suez Canal and to remove Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser from power. Eisenhower was incensed; he, and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, felt that the action had threatened to destabilise the strategically vital region and strengthen Soviet links.

Eisenhower demanded that the allies evacuate Egypt immediately, and imposed economic sanctions on France and Britain by threatening to sell US government pound sterling bonds. Against Israel, he threatened sanctions.

All three powers buckled under the pressure. Although Prime Minister Anthony Eden was America’s closest ally, Eisenhower brought his economy to the verge of collapse. The pressure destroyed Eden’s career.

Eisenhower came to rue these policies. In a letter to British MP Julian Amery in 1987, Richard Nixon, Eisenhower’s vice-president at the time, commented: ‘Years later, I talked with Eisenhower about Suez. He told me that it was his major foreign policy mistake. He gritted his teeth and remarked: “Why couldn’t the British and French have done it more quickly?” He went on to observe that our action in saving Nasser at Suez didn’t help as far as the Middle East was concerned.’

Eisenhower believed he was stabilising the region and laying the foundation for a strategic accommodation between the Arabs, as a bloc, and the US. But the anticipated benefit never materialised.

Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser emerged from the conflict stronger and more adversarial to US interests. The Soviet penetration of the Middle East deepened. These trends had catastrophic consequences, chief among them the 1958 revolution in Iraq, which replaced the most pro-Western Arab government with a junta that migrated into Soviet orbit.

Nixon and Eisenhower agreed that ‘the worst fall-out from Suez was that it weakened the will of our best allies, Britain and France, to play a role in the mid-East or in other areas outside Europe’.

When the US became mired in Vietnam, Britain and France refused to help. Eisenhower had taught them that their Nato alliance imposed no binding obligations outside Europe. Dr Ken Warren,

Glasgow.

QUESTION Was there a game on the Atari game console that was banned for its lewd content?

THOUGH it’s hard to believe, it was once thought that the Atari 2600 videogame system, released in 1977, was the place to showcase sleazy adult videogames.

One company, Mystique, produced a series of such titles. None was universally banned – but some probably should have been. Mystique wrote in its promotional literature: ‘We at Mystique feel that it’s time for video games and their adult players to come out of the closet, away from the kids, and deal with adult fantasies.’

To think that the rather basic Atari 2600 – with its simple blocky graphics, more suited to games such as Pong and Space Invaders, – could make games that were even remotely erotic now seems laughable.

Mystique’s debut game was the incredibly tasteless Custer’s Revenge (1982), where a naked Custer comes back from the dead and imposes himself on various Indian squaws. Sold in a sealed package, its literature included the warning: ‘If the kids catch you and should ask, tell them Custer and the maiden are just dancing.’

The game provoked widespread protest – but this led only to excellent sales.

Another game, A Knight On The Town, involved the player laying bricks across a dangerous moat so the knight could become intimate with a buxom damsel in distress.

Other games were remarkably crude, including Beat ’Em And Eat ’Em! whose instructions are simply too rude to relay here.

Other companies tried to get in on the act. X-Man was the only game produced by Universal Gamex. The player assumed the role of a nude, male character who had to negotiate a maze, protecting his private parts from a series of hazards: scissors, teeth, and crabs. The reward if completed was a virtual woman.

While not banned, this game was criticised by women’s groups and most retailers declined to carry it – though there were reportedly many ‘under-the-counter’ sales.

Colin Rand, Luton, Bedfordshire.