Bilderberg
Ferd Burfle
be a whacked-out conspiracy nut. The following is offered in order to
counter that suggestion. Please browse the review.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0979988624/ref=pe_606_13562160_pe_ar_t7
-Sparkle Farkle's boyfriend
--
Trust the Government to fuck up everything.
Nigel Stapley
> It was recently suggested that because I mentioned the Group, I must be
> a whacked-out conspiracy nut. The following is offered in order to
> counter that suggestion. Please browse the review.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0979988624/ref=pe_606_13562160_pe_ar_t7
>
Oh come on! It must be true because someone wrote a book about it? Dan
Brown, anyone?
Sheesh!
--
Regards
Nigel Stapley
<reply-to will bounce>
Ferd Burfle
> Ferd Burfle wrote:
>> It was recently suggested that because I mentioned the Group, I must
>> be a whacked-out conspiracy nut. The following is offered in order to
>> counter that suggestion. Please browse the review.
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0979988624/ref=pe_606_13562160_pe_ar_t7
>>
>
> Oh come on! It must be true because someone wrote a book about it? Dan
> Brown, anyone?
Did you read the review?
Those names are not made up. Can you imagine that they are up to
anything good?
Did you study at a University to learn how to bleat so charmingly?
Baa baa baa
Do you have anything worthwhile to offer?
It requires neither character nor wisdom to scoff.
-Sparkle Farkle's boyfriend
--
Trust the Government.
steveski
I espouse neither your nor Nigel's view, Rocky, (and we've always spoken
respectfully to each other) but that was a bit below the belt. This is
*afp* - let's not stoop to insults.
--
Steveski
Ferd Burfle
Disrespect, insults, are in the ear of the listener.
I would have sworn I said nothing but simple truth.
Ferd Burfle
> steveski wrote:
>> Ferd Burfle wrote:
>>
>>> Nigel Stapley wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ferd Burfle wrote:
>>>>> It was recently suggested that because I mentioned the Group, I must
>>>>> be a whacked-out conspiracy nut. The following is offered in order to
>>>>> counter that suggestion. Please browse the review.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0979988624/ref=pe_606_13562160_pe_ar_t7
>>>>>
>>>> Oh come on! It must be true because someone wrote a book about it? Dan
>>>> Brown, anyone?
>>> Did you read the review?
>>>
>>> Those names are not made up. Can you imagine that they are up to
>>> anything good?
>>>
>>> Did you study at a University to learn how to bleat so charmingly?
>>>
>>> Baa baa baa
>>>
>>> Do you have anything worthwhile to offer?
>>>
>>> It requires neither character nor wisdom to scoff.
>>
>> I espouse neither your nor Nigel's view, Rocky, (and we've always spoken
>> respectfully to each other) but that was a bit below the belt. This is
>> *afp* - let's not stoop to insults.
I think this requires a second reply.
Nigel's message implied that I am a fool or badly misinformed. What
has Dan Brown to do with the subject? Does the fact that Brown writes
best-selling bilge somehow indict all books? Did I say that the
Bilderberg group must be real as described because a book was written
on the subject. This was Nigel's implication. Do you think Nigel's
scathing disrespect of my opinion and of me as a person was warranted?
I do not. I just resent the living fuck out of it.
Thanks for taking his side.
Fuck the both of you.
Nigel Stapley
> Nigel Stapley wrote:
>
>> Ferd Burfle wrote:
>>> It was recently suggested that because I mentioned the Group, I must
>>> be a whacked-out conspiracy nut. The following is offered in order to
>>> counter that suggestion. Please browse the review.
>>>
>>> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0979988624/ref=pe_606_13562160_pe_ar_t7
>>>
>>
>> Oh come on! It must be true because someone wrote a book about it? Dan
>> Brown, anyone?
>
> Did you read the review?
Yes. Publishers'/authors' reviews are scarcely worth the html code. As
for the 'editorial reviews' - I mean, 'worldnetdaily.com'? And then the
'customer reviews': one who believes that Thatcher <fx:spit> was
dethroned because the bankers wanted Yookania to sign up to the Euro and
she was against it? (Hint: nearly twenty years on from The Great
Defenestration, it still hasn't and what have the Wildebeesters done in
the meantime if they were/are so desperate for it to happen?). Someone
else referring us to John 14:30? Hardly balanced are they, even by their
own lights?
>
> Those names are not made up. Can you imagine that they are up to
> anything good?
Of course not (from the point of view of those at the bottom of the
ladder, at least); they're politicians and bankers, aren't they? You
yourself have called them 'psychopaths' at every possible opportunuty.
To extrapolate from that, however, that they're all involved in some
immense octopodic plot against 'freedom' (as you would define it) is to
turn poor old Mr Credulity into The India Rubber Man.
'Conspiracy theories' cannot usually justify the description; they are
not theories, they are merely *hypotheses*, for which the evidence which
might turn them into theories is either scant, skewed or totally absent.
>
> Did you study at a University to learn how to bleat so charmingly?
>
> Baa baa baa
I'm Welsh and it was a Welsh university. We tend (rightly or wrongly) to
be a bit sensitive on the subject of sheep (cf. trolls and billy goats),
so that comment was beneath you, sir.
>
> Do you have anything worthwhile to offer?
I hope so. Rather more than seeing conspiracies where none may exist
simply in order to bolster or boost an ideological position. Finagle's
Second Law applies:
"No matter what result is anticipated, there will always be someone eager to
1. misinterpret it,
2. fake it, or
3. believe it happened according to his own pet theory."
>
> It requires neither character nor wisdom to scoff.
No comment, except perhaps "Res ipsa loquitur".
jester
<fe...@moonwalking-on-water.com> wrote:
<snip>
>I think this requires a second reply.
I think this deserves a simple reply...
*plonk*
--
Andy Brown
Duct tape is like the Force; it has a light side and a dark side and it holds
the universe together
GaryN
news:VDoJm.2458$rE5...@newsfe08.iad:
> Nigel Stapley wrote:
>
>> Ferd Burfle wrote:
>>> It was recently suggested that because I mentioned the Group, I must
>>> be a whacked-out conspiracy nut. The following is offered in order
>>> to counter that suggestion. Please browse the review.
>>>
>>> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0979988624/ref=pe_606_13562160_pe_ar_t7
>>>
>>
>> Oh come on! It must be true because someone wrote a book about it?
>> Dan Brown, anyone?
>
> Did you read the review?
I did, and frankly I wasn't impressed. Coming next "How Hells Angels
are going to take over the world because they have a yearly rally" or
maybe "Michael Eavis is going to take over the world because he has a
huge rock festival each year on his farm to brainwash the younger
generation"
> Those names are not made up. Can you imagine that they are up to
> anything good?
Being as they are politicians and bankers I doubt it. OTOH a bunch of
egos that size getting together and agreeing on *anything* seems
unlikely.
<snip>
I can write a conspiracy theory book and drop names all through it -
does that prove that it happens? Leave it to the paranoids to believe
this stuff.
Go read Private Eye if you really want to find out what's going on.
gary
--
"I really like this jacket
but the sleeves are much too long"
Motorhead - 'Back At The Funny Farm'.
steveski
[snip]
> Fuck the both of you.
Wow! Any good and/or respectful communications between us in the past, both
here and by email, seem to have evaporated.
Goodbye, Rocky.
--
Steveski
Lesley Weston
<snip>
> I'm Welsh and it was a Welsh university. We tend (rightly or wrongly) to
> be a bit sensitive on the subject of sheep (cf. trolls and billy goats),
> so that comment was beneath you, sir.
During the War, the various colleges of London University were evacuated
to the various colleges of the University of Wales. UCL, my father's
alma mater, went to Aberystwyth, my mother's. Food, especially meat, was
very short for law-abiding people, which group included my father of
course, but somehow his landlady always managed to serve lamb or mutton
at every meal. After the War he found himself unable to eat either, and
he still can't. The mass evacuation did have one good result: A lot of
Welsh people married a lot of Londoners, including my parents, though
presumably the Welsh half of each pair had to manage without lamb.
So have I managed to derail this discussion onto something more pleasant?
--
Lesley Weston
The addy above is real, but I won't see anything posted to it for a long
time. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca, adjusting as necessary.
Nigel Stapley
> Nigel Stapley wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I'm Welsh and it was a Welsh university. We tend (rightly or wrongly)
>> to be a bit sensitive on the subject of sheep (cf. trolls and billy
>> goats), so that comment was beneath you, sir.
>
> During the War, the various colleges of London University were evacuated
> to the various colleges of the University of Wales. UCL, my father's
> alma mater, went to Aberystwyth, my mother's. Food, especially meat, was
> very short for law-abiding people, which group included my father of
> course, but somehow his landlady always managed to serve lamb or mutton
> at every meal.
IMLE, Aberystwyth landladies obey Leacock's Law
(http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/s/stephenlea213394.html).
> The mass evacuation did have one good result: A lot of
> Welsh people married a lot of Londoners, including my parents
Lucky for you, but it almost certainly worked to the detriment of the
survival of our culture.
>
> So have I managed to derail this discussion onto something more
> pleasant?
>
Given the protagonists, probably not, but thanks for trying. :-)
Lesley Weston
> Lesley Weston wrote:
>> Nigel Stapley wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> I'm Welsh and it was a Welsh university. We tend (rightly or wrongly)
>>> to be a bit sensitive on the subject of sheep (cf. trolls and billy
>>> goats), so that comment was beneath you, sir.
>>
>> During the War, the various colleges of London University were
>> evacuated to the various colleges of the University of Wales. UCL, my
>> father's alma mater, went to Aberystwyth, my mother's. Food,
>> especially meat, was very short for law-abiding people, which group
>> included my father of course, but somehow his landlady always managed
>> to serve lamb or mutton at every meal.
>
> IMLE, Aberystwyth landladies obey Leacock's Law
> (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/s/stephenlea213394.html).
Odd that eating lamb doesn't have that effect on other people.
>
>> The mass evacuation did have one good result: A lot of Welsh people
>> married a lot of Londoners, including my parents
>
> Lucky for you, but it almost certainly worked to the detriment of the
> survival of our culture.
>
I doubt this: it meant that about half (presumably) of the marriages
resulted in Welsh people living in London while still remaining Welsh
enough to influence the Londoners around them. My mother joined the
London Welsh Choir. The other half resulted in Londoners living in Wales
and discovering the pleasures of doing so. And stirring up the gene pool
is generally a Good Thing.
Winterbay
Do not mix up gene pool and culture. I'd say that for "survival of the
species" then yes, mixing is good, for survival of a culture, as it is,
mixing is generally a bad idea leading to a mixed culture which may have
parts of the old culture in it, but it will most certainly not be the
old culture...
/Winterbay
The Stainless Steel Cat
Winterbay <peter....@gmail.com> wrote:
>Lesley Weston skrev:
>> And stirring up the gene pool
>> is generally a Good Thing.
>>
>
>Do not mix up gene pool and culture. I'd say that for "survival of the
>species" then yes, mixing is good, for survival of a culture, as it is,
>mixing is generally a bad idea leading to a mixed culture which may have
>parts of the old culture in it, but it will most certainly not be the
>old culture...
Not necessarily a bad thing for those of us descended from Aztecs, Mayans,
head-hunters, etc...
Cat.
Nigel Stapley
What he said.
Lesley Weston
No, that was a separate point.
> I'd say that for "survival of the
> species" then yes, mixing is good, for survival of a culture, as it is,
> mixing is generally a bad idea leading to a mixed culture which may have
> parts of the old culture in it, but it will most certainly not be the
> old culture...
But living things, including cultures, change. I find the self-conscious
preservation by outsiders of the old ways quite embarrassing, when the
members of that culture are growing out of them. Anything worth keeping
will automatically be kept as that culture changes; whatever dies out is
no longer needed or wanted by the people actually experiencing that culture.
Nigel Stapley
> But living things, including cultures, change. I find the self-conscious
> preservation by outsiders of the old ways quite embarrassing, when the
> members of that culture are growing out of them. Anything worth keeping
> will automatically be kept as that culture changes; whatever dies out is
> no longer needed or wanted by the people actually experiencing that
> culture.
>
I know we've had this discussion before, and I know I should know
better, but you are once again treating cultures as if they were immune
to outside pressures. They are not.
Did the surly natives of South America end up speaking Spanish because
they thought that it was intrinsically such a good idea? No, it was
because Spanish language and culture was imposed upon them at the sharp
end of guns, swords and priests.
Did the English language spread as it has done because it and its
attendant culture were instrinsically better suited to the 'real world'
than the languages and cultures of those upon whom they were visited?
No, it was because English happens to be the native language of the two
biggest empires (politically, economically and militarily) that
humankind has ever known.
What once was done by guns, swords and priests has latterly been done by
finance, propaganda and saturation. So the fact that more than half the
population spoke the language as late as 1891, whereas now there are
only about *seventeen* communities in the whole country where 80%+ of
the inhabitants speak it is *not* down simply to the abandonment of 'the
old ways' or that what has been lost was simply 'no longer needed or
wanted'. It was because the language was deliberately deprived of any
official status whatsoever, the politicians and pundits who dominated
public discourse kept repeating variants on the mantra, "it's inferior,
let it die, be *modern*", and that the population was bombarded from all
sides with English-this and English-that so that they actually came to
*believe* that the language and culture which had been theirs for
hundreds of years was in some fundamental way inferior.
When you place a language or culture into an inferior or submissive
r�le, you place those who uphold them in that position as well.
My own Taid (grandfather) was a case in point. A native Welsh-speaker
(and this in the old North Wales coalfield, not in the mountain
fastnesses), he saw no point in passing the language on to any of his
children (this was in the 1920s and 30s) because he - along with nearly
all of his class - had been 'persuaded' that it was dying anyway, and
was no use to the 'modern' world.
No culture (at least, not in the over-developed world) exists in
isolation, nor should it. To claim that there is some sort of purely
'Darwinian' process by which languages and cultures cease to be viable,
however, is hokum.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
wrote:
> Winterbay wrote:
>> Lesley Weston skrev:
>>> Nigel Stapley wrote:
>>>> Lesley Weston wrote:
<snip>
>>>>> The mass evacuation did have one good result: A lot of Welsh
>>>>> people married a lot of Londoners, including my parents
>>>>
>>>> Lucky for you, but it almost certainly worked to the detriment of
>>>> the survival of our culture.
>>>>
>>> I doubt this: it meant that about half (presumably) of the marriages
>>> resulted in Welsh people living in London while still remaining
>>> Welsh enough to influence the Londoners around them. My mother
>>> joined the London Welsh Choir. The other half resulted in Londoners
>>> living in Wales and discovering the pleasures of doing so. And
>>> stirring up the gene pool is generally a Good Thing.
<snip>
>> I'd say that for "survival of the
>> species" then yes, mixing is good, for survival of a culture, as it
>> is, mixing is generally a bad idea leading to a mixed culture which
>> may have parts of the old culture in it, but it will most certainly
>> not be the old culture...
>
> But living things, including cultures, change. I find the
> self-conscious preservation by outsiders of the old ways quite
> embarrassing, when the members of that culture are growing out of
> them. Anything worth keeping will automatically be kept as that
> culture changes; whatever dies out is no longer needed or wanted by
> the people actually experiencing that culture.
Did the Campaign For Stamping Out History sign you up when I wasn't
looking?
IME, self-concious preservation of culture is usually done by the members
of the culture. It's the outsiders who insist people have to move with
the times (ie, do things *their* way).
--
Dave
"All those with psychokinesis, raise my hand."
The Room With No Doors, Kate Orman
Lesley Weston
> Lesley Weston wrote:
>
>> But living things, including cultures, change. I find the
>> self-conscious preservation by outsiders of the old ways quite
>> embarrassing, when the members of that culture are growing out of
>> them. Anything worth keeping will automatically be kept as that
>> culture changes; whatever dies out is no longer needed or wanted by
>> the people actually experiencing that culture.
>>
>
> I know we've had this discussion before, and I know I should know
> better, but you are once again treating cultures as if they were immune
> to outside pressures. They are not.
Of course they're not - why should they be? No country is an island...
well some are, but you know what I mean.
>
> Did the surly natives of South America end up speaking Spanish because
> they thought that it was intrinsically such a good idea? No, it was
> because Spanish language and culture was imposed upon them at the sharp
> end of guns, swords and priests.
All of which were a Bad Thing, as I think everyone here would agree. But
what's happening to every culture in the world now, not just the Welsh
one, and what has always happened whenever two cultures meet, doesn't
involve force. It's the wish of the people in one culture for what they
perceive as the benefits of the others that brings about the change now,
not someone else's rules imposed by force. And who has the right to tell
them that they shouldn't want that?
>
> Did the English language spread as it has done because it and its
> attendant culture were instrinsically better suited to the 'real world'
> than the languages and cultures of those upon whom they were visited?
> No, it was because English happens to be the native language of the two
> biggest empires (politically, economically and militarily) that
> humankind has ever known.
According to Robert Graves (not the most trustworthy of sources,
admittedly), in the time of the Emperor Claudius there was hardly anyone
left who spoke Etruscan; all the Etruscans spoke Latin like any other
civilised people. Plus �a change...
>
> What once was done by guns, swords and priests has latterly been done by
> finance, propaganda and saturation.
So it does no harm. If you don't have to use force to impose your
culture on another, then that other must want yours.
> So the fact that more than half the
> population spoke the language as late as 1891, whereas now there are
> only about *seventeen* communities in the whole country where 80%+ of
> the inhabitants speak it is *not* down simply to the abandonment of 'the
> old ways' or that what has been lost was simply 'no longer needed or
> wanted'.
There's no law now saying that people can't talk Welsh and teach it to
their children if they want to, just as there's no law saying that they
must speak English.
> It was because the language was deliberately deprived of any
> official status whatsoever, the politicians and pundits who dominated
> public discourse kept repeating variants on the mantra, "it's inferior,
> let it die, be *modern*", and that the population was bombarded from all
> sides with English-this and English-that so that they actually came to
> *believe* that the language and culture which had been theirs for
> hundreds of years was in some fundamental way inferior.
Not IME; a large part of my grandparents' and my mother's humour
involved showing how the Welsh are superior in every way to the English.
This did not annoy my father as much as it could have done, since
although he was born in England his family were Romanian. But I haven't
been there for a while; perhaps the Welsh national perceptions of
Welshness have changed in the last thirty-odd years.
>
> When you place a language or culture into an inferior or submissive
> r�le, you place those who uphold them in that position as well.
Only if they agree to it, and all the Welsh people I have ever known
(not excluding present company) have seen themselves as being far from
inferior and submissive. Which is as it should be of course.
>
> My own Taid (grandfather) was a case in point. A native Welsh-speaker
> (and this in the old North Wales coalfield, not in the mountain
> fastnesses), he saw no point in passing the language on to any of his
> children (this was in the 1920s and 30s) because he - along with nearly
> all of his class - had been 'persuaded' that it was dying anyway, and
> was no use to the 'modern' world.
My grandfather, born in the Rhondda around 1880, didn't speak English
until he went to school, when he was forced to do so as you say. My
grandmother was also completely bilingual, though her family often spoke
English at home. My grandparents mostly spoke English at home; however,
they tried to teach Welsh to their only child, my mother, but she wasn't
having any of it. Not because it wasn't modern but because she wasn't
interested.
So I know hardly any Welsh, which I regret. I also regret knowing
hardly any Yiddish and French and no Romanian, Russian or German, all of
which my other grandparents spoke fluently, because my father wasn't
interested in learning those either.
>
> No culture (at least, not in the over-developed world) exists in
> isolation, nor should it.
So I'm not sure what we're arguing about, if we agree on this.
> To claim that there is some sort of purely
> 'Darwinian' process by which languages and cultures cease to be viable,
> however, is hokum.
>
Indeed it is. Which is probably why I haven't made this claim.
Lesley Weston
Gods forbid! I don't advocate the loss of the Welsh language and culture
(or the Scots one or any other except perhaps the fundamentalist
religious ones). I do advocate people in any culture deciding for
themselves what they want to do about it, so that those who want to
preserve it are free to do so, and those who don't care don't have to
worry about it.
Here in Canada, there are some First Nations people who are struggling
with limited success to undo the damage done by the Residential Schools
programme and other attempts to destroy their cultures. I agree that
that was a shameful part of Canada's past, and anything that European
Canadians can do to put it right, they should do. Not that that amounts
to much. But there are plenty of Aboriginals who just want to live their
lives in whatever way suits them, and I don't think anyone, of their own
people or any other group, has the right to tell them they shouldn't.
>
> IME, self-concious preservation of culture is usually done by the members
> of the culture. It's the outsiders who insist people have to move with
> the times (ie, do things *their* way).
>
In all the cases I can think of, it's the other way round. I used to
sing folk songs in folk clubs, long ago, along with many other urban,
middle-class people. There was a movement to take Folk to the folk, but
it never really took off, since the folk in question were simply not
interested.
I can't blame them; the music is dreadfully dull, especially if you
fall among purists who won't allow any kind of accompaniment or even
harmony [1]. When there's no alternative, people will listen to it
rather than to no music, but when the folk are offered much more
exciting and fulfilling music they're naturally going to choose that.
[1] I was singing it because that was the only way you can sing solo
before an audience without having an agent, so it's the only way to find
one. It didn't work, possibly because I suffer from terminal stage
fright and so become completely invisible on stage. Not inaudible, but
that's not enough by itself.
Nigel Stapley
> But
> what's happening to every culture in the world now, not just the Welsh
> one, and what has always happened whenever two cultures meet, doesn't
> involve force.
I spent two hours this morning in a meeting where the other participants
didn't seem capable of understanding what I was telling them, so I'm a
bit reluctant to repeat the experience so soon afterwards (especially as
it may confirm that my communication skills aren't what I thought they
were), but here goes:
You seem to be assuming that 'force' only refers to coercion which can
be applied physically. This is what we doctors call 'twaddle'.
What do you suppose happens when one culture, which had long been a
culture primarily of artisans, hedge preachers and (for want of a more
nuanced word) 'peasants' suddenly came up against a culture which had
control of all of the land, comparatively limitless financial resources
and the full panoply of state, legal and ecclesiastical power? Isn't
that relationship a touch assymetrical? And what do you think happens to
the weaker side? And why do you insist that such a process does not
involve 'force'?
> It's the wish of the people in one culture for what they
> perceive as the benefits of the others that brings about the change now,
> not someone else's rules imposed by force. And who has the right to tell
> them that they shouldn't want that?
Why would they perceive that the language and culture which had been
theirs for generations (centuries, in fact), and through which they had
hitherto lived every aspect of their lives, was so inferior that they
start to want to be members solely of a culture not their own? Could it
be because they were told, often, loudly and at every point of contact
between them and temporal (and indeed spiritual) power that their
culture *was* inferior, and that it should be abandoned for that of the
ruling powers? What they 'want' or *think* they want will inevitably be
coloured by that, so they end up wanting it because those in whose
interests it was for them to be assimilated to the dominant culture had
told them that they should want it.
This is not to claim that they are stupid; merely that they are human.
>>
>> Did the English language spread as it has done because it and its
>> attendant culture were instrinsically better suited to the 'real
>> world' than the languages and cultures of those upon whom they were
>> visited? No, it was because English happens to be the native language
>> of the two biggest empires (politically, economically and militarily)
>> that humankind has ever known.
>
> According to Robert Graves (not the most trustworthy of sources,
> admittedly), in the time of the Emperor Claudius there was hardly anyone
> left who spoke Etruscan; all the Etruscans spoke Latin like any other
> civilised people. Plus �a change...
Just because it happened then (even if Graves could be believed - he
wasn't there, and was no historian) doesn't mean the morality of it
shouldn't pass unchallenged when the process looks like repeating itself.
>>
>> What once was done by guns, swords and priests has latterly been done
>> by finance, propaganda and saturation.
>
> So it does no harm. If you don't have to use force to impose your
> culture on another, then that other must want yours.
Bloody hell, Lesley! Why can't you get it into your head that force does
*not* involve merely physical domination? Have you never heard of the
power of propaganda (including political, religious and commercial
propaganda - which is called 'advertising', but which is much the same
beast)?
>
>> So the fact that more than half the population spoke the language as
>> late as 1891, whereas now there are only about *seventeen* communities
>> in the whole country where 80%+ of the inhabitants speak it is *not*
>> down simply to the abandonment of 'the old ways' or that what has been
>> lost was simply 'no longer needed or wanted'.
>
> There's no law now saying that people can't talk Welsh and teach it to
> their children if they want to, just as there's no law saying that they
> must speak English.
Yet the fact remains that, even today, if you want to have any commerce
with an arm of the British state, you will find it far easier to do it
in English because - even if the facility for the use of Welsh is there
- you have to ask specially for it. Do you just possibly think that the
fact that Welsh speakers - should they be minded to want a service in
their own language in their own country - have to make a special request
for it just might extend that sense of inferiority that that same state
has encouraged and reinforced?
>
>> It was because the language was deliberately deprived of any official
>> status whatsoever, the politicians and pundits who dominated public
>> discourse kept repeating variants on the mantra, "it's inferior, let
>> it die, be *modern*", and that the population was bombarded from all
>> sides with English-this and English-that so that they actually came to
>> *believe* that the language and culture which had been theirs for
>> hundreds of years was in some fundamental way inferior.
>
> Not IME; a large part of my grandparents' and my mother's humour
> involved showing how the Welsh are superior in every way to the English.
> This did not annoy my father as much as it could have done, since
> although he was born in England his family were Romanian. But I haven't
> been there for a while; perhaps the Welsh national perceptions of
> Welshness have changed in the last thirty-odd years.
It is one thing to claim in jest that the Welsh are superior to the
English. Every cultural group does something similar. It doesn't change
the facts on the ground, however.
>>
>> When you place a language or culture into an inferior or submissive
>> r�le, you place those who uphold them in that position as well.
>
> Only if they agree to it, and all the Welsh people I have ever known
> (not excluding present company) have seen themselves as being far from
> inferior and submissive. Which is as it should be of course.
How generous of you. By what process would people 'agree' to become
inferior, do you think? And would they have reached that happy state
without a great deal of propagandising on the benefits of seeing their
own inheritance as worthless?
>>
>> My own Taid (grandfather) was a case in point. A native Welsh-speaker
>> (and this in the old North Wales coalfield, not in the mountain
>> fastnesses), he saw no point in passing the language on to any of his
>> children (this was in the 1920s and 30s) because he - along with
>> nearly all of his class - had been 'persuaded' that it was dying
>> anyway, and was no use to the 'modern' world.
>
> My grandfather, born in the Rhondda around 1880, didn't speak English
> until he went to school, when he was forced to do so as you say. My
> grandmother was also completely bilingual, though her family often spoke
> English at home. My grandparents mostly spoke English at home; however,
> they tried to teach Welsh to their only child, my mother, but she wasn't
> having any of it. Not because it wasn't modern but because she wasn't
> interested.
If they spoke mostly English at home, /pace/ them, then they were part
of the problem. If they didn't speak Welsh to their child when she was a
child *as the normal medium of communication in the home*, then it's
hardly suprising if their daughter regarded Welsh as 'uninteresting', as
she would probably have regarded it as nothing more than an 'add-on'
rather than an integral part of her identity. This was widespread, as I
have already related.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
wrote:
> Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
>> IME, self-concious preservation of culture is usually done by the
>> members of the culture. It's the outsiders who insist people have to
>> move with the times (ie, do things *their* way).
>>
> In all the cases I can think of, it's the other way round. I used to
> sing folk songs in folk clubs, long ago, along with many other urban,
> middle-class people. There was a movement to take Folk to the folk,
> but it never really took off, since the folk in question were simply
> not interested.
It possibly depends what you consider to be "the culture".
The "tartan and shortbread" view of Scotland, for instance, is *not* an
example of English people celebrating Scottish culture and the Scots
finding it entirely embarassing. Because the "tartan and shortbread" view
of Scotland is *not* Scottish culture and never was. It's a parody of
Scottish culture[1] created by people who aren't the least bit interested
in real Scottish culture. The lack of interest Scottish people have in it
isn't because we're not interested in our culture, it's because *that's*
*not* *our* *culture*. In fact, the patronising portrayal of Scottish
culture in the meedja is part of what's causing it to decay.
[1] In fact, strictly speaking, it's a parody *of* a parody of Highland
culture, the original parody being created by Lowlanders in the late 18th
century (thanks, Sir Walter), after the real culture was essentially
declared illegal following the '45.
Lesley Weston
> On 11 Nov 2009, Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
>
>>> IME, self-concious preservation of culture is usually done by the
>>> members of the culture. It's the outsiders who insist people have to
>>> move with the times (ie, do things *their* way).
>>>
>> In all the cases I can think of, it's the other way round. I used to
>> sing folk songs in folk clubs, long ago, along with many other urban,
>> middle-class people. There was a movement to take Folk to the folk,
>> but it never really took off, since the folk in question were simply
>> not interested.
>
> It possibly depends what you consider to be "the culture".
>
> The "tartan and shortbread" view of Scotland, for instance, is *not* an
> example of English people celebrating Scottish culture and the Scots
> finding it entirely embarassing. Because the "tartan and shortbread" view
> of Scotland is *not* Scottish culture and never was.
I didn't think it was, though I'll admit I don't really have much idea
of what Scottish culture actually is. And anyway - /which/ Scottish
culture? Lowland or Highland? Mainland or islands? etc.
> It's a parody of
> Scottish culture[1] created by people who aren't the least bit interested
> in real Scottish culture.
Just like the parodies of any conquered people put out by the conquerors.
> The lack of interest Scottish people have in it
> isn't because we're not interested in our culture, it's because *that's*
> *not* *our* *culture*. In fact, the patronising portrayal of Scottish
> culture in the meedja is part of what's causing it to decay.
>
> [1] In fact, strictly speaking, it's a parody *of* a parody of Highland
> culture, the original parody being created by Lowlanders in the late 18th
> century (thanks, Sir Walter), after the real culture was essentially
> declared illegal following the '45.
>
That seemed to be the English way of dealing with other peoples around
then. The current practices, while more defensible ethically, are rather
more ludicrous. See the Quebec language laws, put in place by the French
Canadian government of Quebec but thoroughly endorsed by the Federal
Government of Canada, which actually means the English Canadian
Government even though some of our Prime Ministers lately have been
French Canadian. These led, among other embarrassments, to the sale of
matzoh being declared illegal in Quebec because the boxes said things in
English and Hebrew, but not in French.
Daniel Orner
> Lesley Weston wrote:
>
>> But what's happening to every culture in the world now, not just the
>> Welsh one, and what has always happened whenever two cultures meet,
>> doesn't involve force.
>
> I spent two hours this morning in a meeting where the other participants
> didn't seem capable of understanding what I was telling them, so I'm a
> bit reluctant to repeat the experience so soon afterwards (especially as
> it may confirm that my communication skills aren't what I thought they
> were), but here goes:
<snip>
I have to say Nigel's arguments are more than convincing. No one ever
really *wants* their culture to change for something else. If it were
possible, the French would have done it by now (ooh!) It almost always
happens by a mixture of propaganda, power, the national equivalent of
peer pressure, financial incentives, envy, etc.
--
http://roleplayingjew.blogspot.com/ - An Orthodox Jew who plays Japanese
role-playing games? Strange but true!
Lesley Weston
> Lesley Weston wrote:
>
>> But what's happening to every culture in the world now, not just the
>> Welsh one, and what has always happened whenever two cultures meet,
>> doesn't involve force.
>
> I spent two hours this morning in a meeting where the other participants
> didn't seem capable of understanding what I was telling them, so I'm a
> bit reluctant to repeat the experience so soon afterwards (especially as
> it may confirm that my communication skills aren't what I thought they
> were), but here goes:
You have my sympathy. I remember meetings like that when I was working.
>
> You seem to be assuming that 'force' only refers to coercion which can
> be applied physically. This is what we doctors call 'twaddle'.
Not at all. Force refers to coercion of any type. Advertising is not
coercion.
>
> What do you suppose happens when one culture, which had long been a
> culture primarily of artisans, hedge preachers and (for want of a more
> nuanced word) 'peasants' suddenly came up against a culture which had
> control of all of the land, comparatively limitless financial resources
> and the full panoply of state, legal and ecclesiastical power? Isn't
> that relationship a touch assymetrical? And what do you think happens to
> the weaker side? And why do you insist that such a process does not
> involve 'force'?
What I suppose happens is what did actually happen in Wales and other
places. The point being the past tense. What England (and other powers
in similar circumstances) did then is inexcusable, but it was /then/.
It's not happening now and hasn't for some time; not in the UK anyway.
>
>> It's the wish of the people in one culture for what they perceive as
>> the benefits of the others that brings about the change now, not
>> someone else's rules imposed by force. And who has the right to tell
>> them that they shouldn't want that?
>
> Why would they perceive that the language and culture which had been
> theirs for generations (centuries, in fact), and through which they had
> hitherto lived every aspect of their lives, was so inferior that they
> start to want to be members solely of a culture not their own?
Why do people in various non-western countries where English is not an
official language, and where English culture is often derided, wear
western clothing (the men, anyway), live in western-style housing, often
eat western-style food and, most importantly, make signs and banners in
English when they want to protest against their own governments?
> Could it
> be because they were told, often, loudly and at every point of contact
> between them and temporal (and indeed spiritual) power that their
> culture *was* inferior, and that it should be abandoned for that of the
> ruling powers?
Quite possibly. But is that still happening?
> What they 'want' or *think* they want will inevitably be
> coloured by that, so they end up wanting it because those in whose
> interests it was for them to be assimilated to the dominant culture had
> told them that they should want it.
I'm always leery of telling people that they don't want what they think
they want.
>
> This is not to claim that they are stupid; merely that they are human.
>
>>>
>>> Did the English language spread as it has done because it and its
>>> attendant culture were instrinsically better suited to the 'real
>>> world' than the languages and cultures of those upon whom they were
>>> visited? No, it was because English happens to be the native language
>>> of the two biggest empires (politically, economically and militarily)
>>> that humankind has ever known.
>>
>> According to Robert Graves (not the most trustworthy of sources,
>> admittedly), in the time of the Emperor Claudius there was hardly
>> anyone left who spoke Etruscan; all the Etruscans spoke Latin like any
>> other civilised people. Plus �a change...
>
> Just because it happened then (even if Graves could be believed - he
> wasn't there, and was no historian) doesn't mean the morality of it
> shouldn't pass unchallenged when the process looks like repeating itself.
Certainly. So anyone who wants to speak Welsh and teach it to their
children should be allowed to do so. Which is now the case, whatever
happened in the past. Do you also feel that Welsh women should be forced
to wear those hats, however each individual woman might feel about it?
>
>>>
>>> What once was done by guns, swords and priests has latterly been done
>>> by finance, propaganda and saturation.
>>
>> So it does no harm. If you don't have to use force to impose your
>> culture on another, then that other must want yours.
>
> Bloody hell, Lesley! Why can't you get it into your head that force does
> *not* involve merely physical domination?
I have never suggested it does. Propaganda does not constitute force of
any type; people always have the choice as to whether or not they
believe it.
> Have you never heard of the
> power of propaganda (including political, religious and commercial
> propaganda - which is called 'advertising', but which is much the same
> beast)?
Yes. I've also heard of the ability of individuals to make their own
decisions about everything that affects them. I think that might be the
heart of this disagreement: You want cultures preserved by force (of the
type you describe) and I don't. Your argument seems to based on the idea
that the masses are not capable of assessing the evidence and making
whatever decision suits them best, so they must be "guided" (read
"forced") into making what you consider to be the right decision, while
mine is that masses consist of individuals, each of whom is fully
capable. What each person thinks they want is in fact what they do want:
who can possibly know better than that individual what he or she wants?
>
>>
>>> So the fact that more than half the population spoke the language as
>>> late as 1891, whereas now there are only about *seventeen*
>>> communities in the whole country where 80%+ of the inhabitants speak
>>> it is *not* down simply to the abandonment of 'the old ways' or that
>>> what has been lost was simply 'no longer needed or wanted'.
>>
>> There's no law now saying that people can't talk Welsh and teach it to
>> their children if they want to, just as there's no law saying that
>> they must speak English.
>
> Yet the fact remains that, even today, if you want to have any commerce
> with an arm of the British state, you will find it far easier to do it
> in English because - even if the facility for the use of Welsh is there
> - you have to ask specially for it.
That must be really irritating to people who speak only Welsh, I agree.
But it's easily fixed if enough people want it fixed. In Canada (and not
just in Quebec) all official things happen in both languages equally,
giving rise to many jokes in both languages, but it seems to work.
> Do you just possibly think that the
> fact that Welsh speakers - should they be minded to want a service in
> their own language in their own country - have to make a special request
> for it just might extend that sense of inferiority that that same state
> has encouraged and reinforced?
No, I should think it would reinforce the Welsh-speakers' feelings of
superiority - they know something the authorities don't know.
You could post to afp in Welsh if you wanted to, and two or three other
afpers would be able to pursue those threads with you. But if you want
to communicate with the rest of afp and the rest of the world, English
works much better. Being bilingual gives you a capability that most
people don't have, which is nice for you, but if other people don't want
that ability, why should they be coerced into having it?
>
<snip>
>>> When you place a language or culture into an inferior or submissive
>>> r�le, you place those who uphold them in that position as well.
>>
>> Only if they agree to it, and all the Welsh people I have ever known
>> (not excluding present company) have seen themselves as being far from
>> inferior and submissive. Which is as it should be of course.
>
> How generous of you.
I was including myself in the present company. I'm as much Welsh as I am
anything else, and completely Welsh according to Rabbinical Law.
> By what process would people 'agree' to become
> inferior, do you think? And would they have reached that happy state
> without a great deal of propagandising on the benefits of seeing their
> own inheritance as worthless?
That was rather my point - they haven't reached that happy state.
>
>>>
>>> My own Taid (grandfather) was a case in point. A native Welsh-speaker
>>> (and this in the old North Wales coalfield, not in the mountain
>>> fastnesses), he saw no point in passing the language on to any of his
>>> children (this was in the 1920s and 30s) because he - along with
>>> nearly all of his class - had been 'persuaded' that it was dying
>>> anyway, and was no use to the 'modern' world.
>>
>> My grandfather, born in the Rhondda around 1880, didn't speak English
>> until he went to school, when he was forced to do so as you say. My
>> grandmother was also completely bilingual, though her family often
>> spoke English at home. My grandparents mostly spoke English at home;
>> however, they tried to teach Welsh to their only child, my mother, but
>> she wasn't having any of it. Not because it wasn't modern but because
>> she wasn't interested.
>
> If they spoke mostly English at home, /pace/ them, then they were part
> of the problem. If they didn't speak Welsh to their child when she was a
> child *as the normal medium of communication in the home*, then it's
> hardly suprising if their daughter regarded Welsh as 'uninteresting', as
> she would probably have regarded it as nothing more than an 'add-on'
> rather than an integral part of her identity. This was widespread, as I
> have already related.
So they (both generations) should have been forced to speak Welsh at
home, whatever their preferences might have been? Perhaps there should
have been language police, as there are in Quebec, to enforce the
relevant laws. Possibly by listening outside their windows. Even at
their worst, the English in Wales didn't suggest the equivalent.
There's nothing to stop me learning Welsh if I want to, even now, and
certainly earlier in my life. My mother later regretted not having taken
the opportunity to learn painlessly so beautiful and expressive a way of
communication, much as she regretted not having practiced the violin
enough, but again her regrets were not sufficient to make her want to
continue with either as an adult. However, my father doesn't much mind
not being able to speak Yiddish, even though that language is just as
expressive as Welsh and perhaps even better suited to humour.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
wrote:
> Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
>> On 11 Nov 2009, Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
>>
>>>> IME, self-concious preservation of culture is usually done by the
>>>> members of the culture. It's the outsiders who insist people have
>>>> to move with the times (ie, do things *their* way).
>>>>
>>> In all the cases I can think of, it's the other way round. I used to
>>> sing folk songs in folk clubs, long ago, along with many other
>>> urban, middle-class people. There was a movement to take Folk to the
>>> folk, but it never really took off, since the folk in question were
>>> simply not interested.
>>
>> It possibly depends what you consider to be "the culture".
>>
>> The "tartan and shortbread" view of Scotland, for instance, is *not*
>> an example of English people celebrating Scottish culture and the
>> Scots finding it entirely embarassing. Because the "tartan and
>> shortbread" view of Scotland is *not* Scottish culture and never was.
>
> I didn't think it was, though I'll admit I don't really have much idea
> of what Scottish culture actually is. And anyway - /which/ Scottish
> culture? Lowland or Highland? Mainland or islands? etc.
Exactly. Although island culture seems to be pretty intact, probably
because they're so isolated[1]. I think there are still entire
communities where Gaelic is a first language, which is good.
[1]I wouldn't use the word "insular", although I would tell the story of
when Mum worked for the Highland Development Board, and went to one of
the Shetland Islands, where she met a woman who'd been to "the mainland"
once, and hadn't liked it at all. It eventually transpired she meant
Mainland Shetland...
Winterbay
> Nigel Stapley wrote:
>> Lesley Weston wrote:
>>> It's the wish of the people in one culture for what they perceive as
>>> the benefits of the others that brings about the change now, not
>>> someone else's rules imposed by force. And who has the right to tell
>>> them that they shouldn't want that?
>>
>> Why would they perceive that the language and culture which had been
>> theirs for generations (centuries, in fact), and through which they
>> had hitherto lived every aspect of their lives, was so inferior that
>> they start to want to be members solely of a culture not their own?
>
> Why do people in various non-western countries where English is not an
> official language, and where English culture is often derided, wear
> western clothing (the men, anyway), live in western-style housing, often
> eat western-style food and, most importantly, make signs and banners in
> English when they want to protest against their own governments?
Well. Because if they do a lot of people outside of their country will
understand the signs as well and thereby they will most likely get more
media coverage. More media coverage leads to a higher pressure being put
on the government in question?
Also: When the only thing you see on TV and in films are anglocentric
it's rather hard not to take notice of that...
>> Could it be because they were told, often, loudly and at every point
>> of contact between them and temporal (and indeed spiritual) power that
>> their culture *was* inferior, and that it should be abandoned for that
>> of the ruling powers?
>
> Quite possibly. But is that still happening?
Yes. China is a very good example of this, and Turkey (with the Kurds)
and a lot of other places. Maybe not so much in the western societies
(although I'm not very convinced about that, take the Laplanders in
Sweden as an example here) but it is still happening all over the world.
>> What they 'want' or *think* they want will inevitably be coloured by
>> that, so they end up wanting it because those in whose interests it
>> was for them to be assimilated to the dominant culture had told them
>> that they should want it.
>
> I'm always leery of telling people that they don't want what they think
> they want.
And yet you seem to do it all the time, saying that people want this and
this when in fact you do not know this.
<snip>
>>>> What once was done by guns, swords and priests has latterly been
>>>> done by finance, propaganda and saturation.
>>>
>>> So it does no harm. If you don't have to use force to impose your
>>> culture on another, then that other must want yours.
>>
>> Bloody hell, Lesley! Why can't you get it into your head that force
>> does *not* involve merely physical domination?
>
> I have never suggested it does. Propaganda does not constitute force of
> any type; people always have the choice as to whether or not they
> believe it.
Yes, they have a choice. But the sole point of say advertising and
propaganda is that most people do not take this choice very seriously.
If something is said enough times people will believe it and when enough
people do it will become the truth almost no matter how false it is.
>> Have you never heard of the power of propaganda (including political,
>> religious and commercial propaganda - which is called 'advertising',
>> but which is much the same beast)?
>
> Yes. I've also heard of the ability of individuals to make their own
> decisions about everything that affects them. I think that might be the
> heart of this disagreement: You want cultures preserved by force (of the
> type you describe) and I don't. Your argument seems to based on the idea
> that the masses are not capable of assessing the evidence and making
> whatever decision suits them best, so they must be "guided" (read
> "forced") into making what you consider to be the right decision, while
> mine is that masses consist of individuals, each of whom is fully
> capable. What each person thinks they want is in fact what they do want:
> who can possibly know better than that individual what he or she wants?
And this thinking mind cannot be in any way be manipulated by others?
<snip>
>> Do you just possibly think that the fact that Welsh speakers - should
>> they be minded to want a service in their own language in their own
>> country - have to make a special request for it just might extend that
>> sense of inferiority that that same state has encouraged and reinforced?
>
> No, I should think it would reinforce the Welsh-speakers' feelings of
> superiority - they know something the authorities don't know.
And much good that will do them...
/Winterbay
The Stainless Steel Cat
Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
>[1]I wouldn't use the word "insular", although I would tell the story of
>when Mum worked for the Highland Development Board, and went to one of
>the Shetland Islands, where she met a woman who'd been to "the mainland"
>once, and hadn't liked it at all. It eventually transpired she meant
>Mainland Shetland...
Good for her! There's far too much of this moving about these days. Why
can't people just decide where the hell they want to be? (As D.Adams almost
said.)
Cat.
Thomas Zahr
...
> Do not mix up gene pool and culture. I'd say that for "survival of the
>
> species" then yes, mixing is good, for survival of a culture, as it
> is,
> mixing is generally a bad idea leading to a mixed culture which may
> have
> parts of the old culture in it, but it will most certainly not be the
> old culture...
And while that is logically correct, I doubt that there ever were
'unmixed' cultures for any length of time.
I live on one of the ancient worlds / medieval worlds great trading
routes, the cultur here is the result of centuries of mixing.
That's neither good nor bad, it just is.
--
Cheers,
Thomas =:-)
Lesley Weston
> Nigel Stapley wrote:
>> Lesley Weston wrote:
>>
>>> But what's happening to every culture in the world now, not just the
>>> Welsh one, and what has always happened whenever two cultures meet,
>>> doesn't involve force.
>>
>> I spent two hours this morning in a meeting where the other
>> participants didn't seem capable of understanding what I was telling
>> them, so I'm a bit reluctant to repeat the experience so soon
>> afterwards (especially as it may confirm that my communication skills
>> aren't what I thought they were), but here goes:
>
> <snip>
>
> I have to say Nigel's arguments are more than convincing.
He's always eloquent, yes.
> No one
> ever really *wants* their culture to change for something else.
Not if they see it in those terms. But English (and Welsh) people wear
jeans and listen to American music, while still considering themselves
to be English or Welsh.
> If it
> were possible, the French would have done it by now (ooh!) It almost
> always happens by a mixture of propaganda, power, the national
> equivalent of peer pressure, financial incentives, envy, etc.
Whatever the cause, if that's what people want then nobody has the right
to tell them they shouldn't want it.
Lesley Weston
It is good, yes, so long as people who don't want to live like that can
easily leave and set up somewhere else. I like the way the Amish handle
this one: Teenagers are encouraged to leave the community for a while,
and to come back only when they are quite sure that they truly want to
live as their parents do. Those who prefer the outside are not shunned
or anything like that, they just live elsewhere and visit, rather than
forming part of that community.
>
> [1]I wouldn't use the word "insular", although I would tell the story of
> when Mum worked for the Highland Development Board, and went to one of
> the Shetland Islands, where she met a woman who'd been to "the mainland"
> once, and hadn't liked it at all. It eventually transpired she meant
> Mainland Shetland...
A woman who knew her own mind.
Lesley Weston
> Lesley Weston skrev:
>> Nigel Stapley wrote:
>>> Lesley Weston wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>>> It's the wish of the people in one culture for what they perceive as
>>>> the benefits of the others that brings about the change now, not
>>>> someone else's rules imposed by force. And who has the right to tell
>>>> them that they shouldn't want that?
>>>
>>> Why would they perceive that the language and culture which had been
>>> theirs for generations (centuries, in fact), and through which they
>>> had hitherto lived every aspect of their lives, was so inferior that
>>> they start to want to be members solely of a culture not their own?
>>
>> Why do people in various non-western countries where English is not an
>> official language, and where English culture is often derided, wear
>> western clothing (the men, anyway), live in western-style housing,
>> often eat western-style food and, most importantly, make signs and
>> banners in English when they want to protest against their own
>> governments?
>
> Well. Because if they do a lot of people outside of their country will
> understand the signs as well and thereby they will most likely get more
> media coverage. More media coverage leads to a higher pressure being put
> on the government in question?
How does that explain the clothes, housing and food? When people are
shown new concepts, they tend to pick out the parts that appeal to them
and incorporate those parts into their own thinking. This is one of
humanity's strengths, and has nothing to do with declaring their
previous ideas inferior. I don't think I've ever come across anybody who
considered themselves inferior, though I've met plenty of people who
consider some other group to be inferior to theirs.
>
> Also: When the only thing you see on TV and in films are anglocentric
> it's rather hard not to take notice of that...
That's what I meant. If you want to communicate with the world, you have
to use a language the world understands. This used to be Latin, but just
now for the moment it's English.
>
>>> Could it be because they were told, often, loudly and at every point
>>> of contact between them and temporal (and indeed spiritual) power
>>> that their culture *was* inferior, and that it should be abandoned
>>> for that of the ruling powers?
>>
>> Quite possibly. But is that still happening?
>
> Yes. China is a very good example of this, and Turkey (with the Kurds)
> and a lot of other places. Maybe not so much in the western societies
> (although I'm not very convinced about that, take the Laplanders in
> Sweden as an example here) but it is still happening all over the world.
I haven't seen much evidence that the Kurds consider themselves inferior
to the Turks. But you're right, I should have added "in the UK" in this
bit, as I have in all the previous bits.
>
>>> What they 'want' or *think* they want will inevitably be coloured by
>>> that, so they end up wanting it because those in whose interests it
>>> was for them to be assimilated to the dominant culture had told them
>>> that they should want it.
>>
>> I'm always leery of telling people that they don't want what they
>> think they want.
>
> And yet you seem to do it all the time, saying that people want this and
> this when in fact you do not know this.
I'm inferring it from the fact that the people in question willingly
embrace the cultural behaviour that Nigel deplores. And I certainly
don't tell people that they are mistaken in believing that they want
whatever it is, when I can see so clearly that they /really/ want
something else altogether.
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>> What once was done by guns, swords and priests has latterly been
>>>>> done by finance, propaganda and saturation.
>>>>
>>>> So it does no harm. If you don't have to use force to impose your
>>>> culture on another, then that other must want yours.
>>>
>>> Bloody hell, Lesley! Why can't you get it into your head that force
>>> does *not* involve merely physical domination?
>>
>> I have never suggested it does. Propaganda does not constitute force
>> of any type; people always have the choice as to whether or not they
>> believe it.
>
> Yes, they have a choice. But the sole point of say advertising and
> propaganda is that most people do not take this choice very seriously.
That's up to them. I'm never very keen on doing good to people against
their will, including protecting them from things they don't consider
undesirable.
> If something is said enough times people will believe it and when enough
> people do it will become the truth almost no matter how false it is.
No it won't. The truth is the truth, whatever people believe.
>
>>> Have you never heard of the power of propaganda (including political,
>>> religious and commercial propaganda - which is called 'advertising',
>>> but which is much the same beast)?
>>
>> Yes. I've also heard of the ability of individuals to make their own
>> decisions about everything that affects them. I think that might be
>> the heart of this disagreement: You want cultures preserved by force
>> (of the type you describe) and I don't. Your argument seems to based
>> on the idea that the masses are not capable of assessing the evidence
>> and making whatever decision suits them best, so they must be "guided"
>> (read "forced") into making what you consider to be the right
>> decision, while mine is that masses consist of individuals, each of
>> whom is fully capable. What each person thinks they want is in fact
>> what they do want: who can possibly know better than that individual
>> what he or she wants?
>
> And this thinking mind cannot be in any way be manipulated by others?
So propaganda is acceptable so long as it's yours rather than your
opponents'? The people who want to embalm cultures and preserve them in
plastic are also attempting to manipulate other people's minds.
SteveD
<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Force refers to coercion of any type. Advertising is not coercion.
Possibly not for those who have gotten used to it. There's still a
proportion which relies on fearmongering, stress induction, and in general
resorting to anything in order to lever money out of people's pockets
without any regard for emotional or mental consequences.
-SteveD
Lesley Weston
All of which are Bad Things, of course, but still not coercion. The
targeted people still have the choice of believing or not, and then of
acting on their belief (if any) or not.
GaryN
news:XNfLm.11212$dc2....@newsfe20.iad:
Nobody has the right to tell them they shouldn't want it. The right to
tell them they can't have it is debatable.
I want an English parliament full of English politicians. I want the
Scottish politicians to bugger off back to Scotland, the Welsh
politicians to sod off back to Wales. Go screw up your own countries if
you're so keen on devolution.
I want Tony Blair to die a painful, lingering, death. I want Peter
Mandelson hung, drawn, quartered and buried at midnight at a crossroads
in an unmarked grave. I want to know which Milliband is which?
What I want and what I can have are different things.
gary
--
"I really like this jacket
but the sleeves are much too long"
Motorhead - 'Back At The Funny Farm'.
Lesley Weston
But are you telling other people that they must also want these things,
whatever they might /think/ they want?
SteveD
<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>SteveD wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:11:40 -0800, Lesley Weston
>> <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Force refers to coercion of any type. Advertising is not coercion.
>>
>> Possibly not for those who have gotten used to it. There's still a
>> proportion which relies on fearmongering, stress induction, and in general
>> resorting to anything in order to lever money out of people's pockets
>> without any regard for emotional or mental consequences.
>
>All of which are Bad Things, of course, but still not coercion. The
>targeted people still have the choice of believing or not, and then of
>acting on their belief (if any) or not.
There's always a choice, even with coercion, where the victim is led to
believe that making the 'wrong' choice will have extremely negative
consequences.
-SteveD
GaryN
> GaryN wrote:
>> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>> news:XNfLm.11212$dc2....@newsfe20.iad:
<snip>
>> What I want and what I can have are different things.
>
> But are you telling other people that they must also want these things,
> whatever they might /think/ they want?
Absolutely not! That's just what *I* want (although I suspect I'd have a
certain amount of popular agreement in the case of Mandelson). I was
merely trying to point out that what one may want and what one may have may
be incompatible with the systems in place for giving what one gets.
GaryN
> Winterbay wrote:
<snip>
>> If something is said enough times people will believe it and when
>> enough people do it will become the truth almost no matter how false
>> it is.
>
> No it won't. The truth is the truth, whatever people believe.
Errr, no. There are plenty of people out there who deny the holocaust, and
believe it to be Zionist propaganda. To them that is the truth.
Since my grandfather was RSM of the unit (15/19 Hussars acting as recon
detatchment for 11 Armoured Division) that liberated Aushwitz I know
different. That's my truth.
I know that something was going on there that disturbed a 20 year battle
hardened soldier so much that he could never talk about it. The deniers
know that it was a holiday camp.
If you've ever been charged in court, and yes I have, you'll know that "The
Truth" is an entirely mutable animal. No two people see the same event in
the same way but each will be convinced that the way *they* remember it is
what happened.
To a large extent there is no truth. There is simply a generally agreed
upon version of events which gradually shifts according to new
'information'. The more often something is said the more real it becomes,
true or otherwise.
gary
--
"History is written by the winners which is why French history books are
blank from cover to cover"
The Pub Landlord.
Lesley Weston
> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> news:gnYLm.14167$gi1....@newsfe19.iad:
>
>> GaryN wrote:
>>> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>>> news:XNfLm.11212$dc2....@newsfe20.iad:
> <snip>
>>> What I want and what I can have are different things.
>> But are you telling other people that they must also want these things,
>> whatever they might /think/ they want?
>
> Absolutely not! That's just what *I* want (although I suspect I'd have a
> certain amount of popular agreement in the case of Mandelson). I was
> merely trying to point out that what one may want and what one may have may
> be incompatible with the systems in place for giving what one gets.
No argument there.
Lesley Weston
You distinguish between coercion and advertising yourself here - so what
are we arguing about?
Lesley Weston
> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> news:gggLm.7520$rE5....@newsfe08.iad:
>
>> Winterbay wrote:
> <snip>
>>> If something is said enough times people will believe it and when
>>> enough people do it will become the truth almost no matter how false
>>> it is.
>> No it won't. The truth is the truth, whatever people believe.
>
> Errr, no. There are plenty of people out there who deny the holocaust, and
> believe it to be Zionist propaganda. To them that is the truth.
To them, yes, but not to everybody else and not in reality.
>
> Since my grandfather was RSM of the unit (15/19 Hussars acting as recon
> detatchment for 11 Armoured Division) that liberated Aushwitz I know
> different. That's my truth.
>
> I know that something was going on there that disturbed a 20 year battle
> hardened soldier so much that he could never talk about it. The deniers
> know that it was a holiday camp.
There are so many witness accounts, and so many witnesses still alive,
and so many documents of various kinds, that the reality is acknowledged
by all but a few loonies as the truth.
>
> If you've ever been charged in court, and yes I have, you'll know that "The
> Truth" is an entirely mutable animal. No two people see the same event in
> the same way but each will be convinced that the way *they* remember it is
> what happened.
There's a story, possibly true, about a Harvard Law Professor who was
teaching a class in criminal law in a normal and rather dull way when a
woman burst into the classroom shouting incoherently and shot him dead.
After giving the students time to react, the professor got up and
thanked the actress, then he told the students to write a detailed
account of what had happened. No two accounts were the same, not just in
details but in the major substance. He used this as the basis of the
rest of his course on assessing witness evidence.
>
> To a large extent there is no truth.
But there is. Something happened or it did not happen, and that can't
change however people's perceptions change.
> There is simply a generally agreed
> upon version of events which gradually shifts according to new
> 'information'.
This much is true.
> The more often something is said the more real it becomes,
> true or otherwise.
And this, in a way. But it doesn't work like the scientific method,
where a consensus is reached in the scientific community and is acted
upon until a better one comes along. Reality is reality, whatever anyone
believes about it. A good example is what's happening about the H1N1
vaccine in Canada. The nonsense about it being dangerous has convinced
about 40% of people not to have the shot and so to expose themselves and
the rest of the population to the risk of being seriously ill and of
dying, as so many people did when virtually the same virus was around in
1919. But it /is/ nonsense; the safety of the vaccine is a matter not of
opinion but of fact, which is a reality that doesn't change however many
ads people see.
Winterbay
> GaryN wrote:
>> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>> news:gggLm.7520$rE5....@newsfe08.iad:
>>> Winterbay wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>> If something is said enough times people will believe it and when
>>>> enough people do it will become the truth almost no matter how false
>>>> it is.
>>> No it won't. The truth is the truth, whatever people believe.
>>
>> Errr, no. There are plenty of people out there who deny the
>> holocaust, and believe it to be Zionist propaganda. To them that is
>> the truth.
>
> To them, yes, but not to everybody else and not in reality.
And how do we define this "true reality" in an objective way?
/Winterbay
SteveD
<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>SteveD wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 06:29:31 -0800, Lesley Weston
>> <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> SteveD wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:11:40 -0800, Lesley Weston
>>>> <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Force refers to coercion of any type. Advertising is not coercion.
>>>> Possibly not for those who have gotten used to it. There's still a
>>>> proportion which relies on fearmongering, stress induction, and in general
>>>> resorting to anything in order to lever money out of people's pockets
>>>> without any regard for emotional or mental consequences.
>>> All of which are Bad Things, of course, but still not coercion. The
>>> targeted people still have the choice of believing or not, and then of
>>> acting on their belief (if any) or not.
>>
>> There's always a choice, even with coercion, where the victim is led to
>> believe that making the 'wrong' choice will have extremely negative
>> consequences.
>
>You distinguish between coercion and advertising yourself here - so what
>are we arguing about?
Actually, if you'll read back, you were separating the two concepts. I was
saying that they overlap.
-SteveD
Lesley Weston
In this case by reading the accounts of victims and outside witnesses,
watching contemporary film and so on. This is not possible for every
situation where the truth is disputed, but in all cases how we define
(or /if/ we define) reality doesn't affect the truth of reality.
GaryN
> Winterbay wrote:
>> Lesley Weston skrev:
>>> GaryN wrote:
>>>> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>>>> news:gggLm.7520$rE5....@newsfe08.iad:
>>>>> Winterbay wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> If something is said enough times people will believe it and when
>>>>>> enough people do it will become the truth almost no matter how
>>>>>> false it is.
>>>>> No it won't. The truth is the truth, whatever people believe.
>>>>
>>>> Errr, no. There are plenty of people out there who deny the
>>>> holocaust, and believe it to be Zionist propaganda. To them that
>>>> is the truth.
>>>
>>> To them, yes, but not to everybody else and not in reality.
>>
>> And how do we define this "true reality" in an objective way?
>>
>
> In this case by reading the accounts of victims and outside witnesses,
> watching contemporary film and so on. This is not possible for every
> situation where the truth is disputed, but in all cases how we define
> (or /if/ we define) reality doesn't affect the truth of reality.
But if you don't have a way of defining "reality" or, indeed, "truth"
how do you decide? Each of us is left to our own devices to decide what
we believe we saw, what we choose to believe as reported to us, and form
the opinion that Peter Mandelson is a complete ****
The only time I heard my grandfather speak about Auschwitz was when a
Jehova's Witness knocked on the door and asked him if he had found God.
His reply - "If you'd seen what I saw at Auschwitz you wouldn't believe
in God"
As far as I'm concerned that's the truth, partly because he wasn't a
particularly imaginative man. Bloody good soldier by all accounts but
not given to flights of fancy.
I strongly suspect that some of the worst was never publicised, frankly
I don't want to know. But when it comes down to "What is true?" Who
knows? A Corporal from the British Army has admitted to abusing Iraqi
and Afghanistani prisoners and implicated most of his unit in doing the
same. Is that real, is he just trying to drag people down with him,
where was the oversight and chain of command?
Don't forget that it was the British who invented the concentration camp
during the Boer war. I'm proud to be English but we've done some bloody
unpleasant things through history. We just did them better than
everyone else.
Lesley Weston
However you choose to decide.
> Each of us is left to our own devices to decide what
> we believe we saw, what we choose to believe as reported to us, and form
> the opinion that Peter Mandelson is a complete ****
Yes, of course we are. We're all in this together all right, but each of
us is also on our own, working things out for ourselves. Common sense
works quite often, providing us with the means to carry on with our
lives, and the rigorous application of a scientific training can be
useful for some purposes such as forming the opinion that Peter
Mandelson is a complete ****. But in the end, reality is whatever it is,
whether we like it or not, and whether we can perceive it or not, and
however elegant our arguments for and against it might be.
>
>
> The only time I heard my grandfather speak about Auschwitz was when a
> Jehova's Witness knocked on the door and asked him if he had found God.
> His reply - "If you'd seen what I saw at Auschwitz you wouldn't believe
> in God"
>
> As far as I'm concerned that's the truth, partly because he wasn't a
> particularly imaginative man. Bloody good soldier by all accounts but
> not given to flights of fancy.
My father-in-law was in Burma for most of the War. He never spoke about
his experiences there except for an amusing story about shooting a
chicken for their supper (he was a sniper), and another about mounting a
daring exercise for C company to steal A company's rations. They were
short of food after the lines had been cut. Whatever it was that he saw,
he was unable to talk about it afterwards, though seeing it changed him
profoundly; I think that was quite common.
>
> I strongly suspect that some of the worst was never publicised, frankly
> I don't want to know. But when it comes down to "What is true?" Who
> knows? A Corporal from the British Army has admitted to abusing Iraqi
> and Afghanistani prisoners and implicated most of his unit in doing the
> same. Is that real, is he just trying to drag people down with him,
> where was the oversight and chain of command?
I don't know, of course, any more than anyone else who wasn't there
does. This is one reason why I'm not interested in revenge and
punishment, only in preventing such things from happening again. Or
perhaps from happening for the first time: the Halloween candy thing may
have started as an UL, but it's become real as the occasional loony
thought "That's a good idea...".
>
> Don't forget that it was the British who invented the concentration camp
> during the Boer war. I'm proud to be English but we've done some bloody
> unpleasant things through history. We just did them better than
> everyone else.
Oh, I don't know... The Canadians (both French and English) have some
things we would rather forget too, along with just about every other nation.
Winterbay
Meaning that we will still come to the conclusion that there are several
truths and realities depending on our point of view and no one who can
decide what is "really" the truth...
>> Each of us is left to our own devices to decide what
>> we believe we saw, what we choose to believe as reported to us, and form
>> the opinion that Peter Mandelson is a complete ****
>
>
> Yes, of course we are. We're all in this together all right, but each of
> us is also on our own, working things out for ourselves. Common sense
> works quite often, providing us with the means to carry on with our
> lives, and the rigorous application of a scientific training can be
> useful for some purposes such as forming the opinion that Peter
> Mandelson is a complete ****. But in the end, reality is whatever it is,
> whether we like it or not, and whether we can perceive it or not, and
> however elegant our arguments for and against it might be.
The problem with common sense is that it is far from common... (quote
from someone other than me), and the fact remains that given the same
set of facts you can come to completely different result depending on
your starting point of view. This is often seen in scientific articles
but even more so in newspapers.
<snip>
> I don't know, of course, any more than anyone else who wasn't there
> does. This is one reason why I'm not interested in revenge and
> punishment, only in preventing such things from happening again. Or
> perhaps from happening for the first time: the Halloween candy thing may
> have started as an UL, but it's become real as the occasional loony
> thought "That's a good idea...".
AFAIK there have only been one confirmed case of poisoned candy (at
least this year) and that was a father that poisoned his own son's candy
in order to hide it under all the other poisonings... (things rarely go
the way you plan them...)
/Winterbay
Daniel Orner
I think that in general, Canadians' knowledge of Canadian history is so
woeful that we've done a pretty good job of forgetting them already.
Lesley Weston
You might, but I shan't. There are several /perceptions/ of truth and
reality, but only one truth and reality. This is unworkable for daily
life, so we generally use a consensus based on the available evidence,
as in the case of the Holocaust.
> and no one who can
> decide what is "really" the truth...
Of course. But that doesn't affect whatever constitutes the reality. I
don't go along with the anthropocentric view of the universe; I really
don't think it matters what any given human or all humanity believe,
except to those affected by that belief. "What is truth, said jesting
Pilate" sortafing.
http://home.hiwaay.net/~paul/bacon/essays/truth.html
Reading that again after a long time, I'm struck by the similarity of it
to Polonius' speech to Laertes and to "There is nothing either good or
bad, but thinking makes it so". I guess Marpeare and Shakeslow knew
Bacon, or possibly were Bacon.
>
>>> Each of us is left to our own devices to decide what
>>> we believe we saw, what we choose to believe as reported to us, and form
>>> the opinion that Peter Mandelson is a complete ****
>>
>>
>> Yes, of course we are. We're all in this together all right, but each
>> of us is also on our own, working things out for ourselves. Common
>> sense works quite often, providing us with the means to carry on with
>> our lives, and the rigorous application of a scientific training can
>> be useful for some purposes such as forming the opinion that Peter
>> Mandelson is a complete ****. But in the end, reality is whatever it
>> is, whether we like it or not, and whether we can perceive it or not,
>> and however elegant our arguments for and against it might be.
>
> The problem with common sense is that it is far from common... (quote
> from someone other than me),
Which is, of course, nonsense. Another thing I don't go along with is
the idea that the masses are sub-human and don't have to be taken into
account. However "Fools are so ingenious" does resonate for me.
> and the fact remains that given the same
> set of facts you can come to completely different result depending on
> your starting point of view. This is often seen in scientific articles
> but even more so in newspapers.
So it does. See the story I told a few days ago about the Harvard law
professor. As another example, anyone who goes outside at intervals
during the day and observes the position of the sun can see for
themselves that it rotates around the Earth; however, the evidence that
this happens only on Diskworld is overwhelming. Also, it is impossible
for bumblebees to fly.
The ability to believe six impossible things before breakfast is
essential if one is to conduct one's life comfortably.
>
> <snip>
>
>> I don't know, of course, any more than anyone else who wasn't there
>> does. This is one reason why I'm not interested in revenge and
>> punishment, only in preventing such things from happening again. Or
>> perhaps from happening for the first time: the Halloween candy thing
>> may have started as an UL, but it's become real as the occasional
>> loony thought "That's a good idea...".
>
> AFAIK there have only been one confirmed case of poisoned candy (at
> least this year) and that was a father that poisoned his own son's candy
> in order to hide it under all the other poisonings... (things rarely go
> the way you plan them...)
There was a case near Vancouver last year of a mother finding a piece of
a razor blade in candy given to her daughter. And no doubt there will be
more cases as people who have read about it go over the edge.
Lesley Weston
> Lesley Weston wrote:
<snip>
>> Oh, I don't know... The Canadians (both French and English) have some
>> things we would rather forget too, along with just about every other
>> nation.
>>
>
> I think that in general, Canadians' knowledge of Canadian history is
> so woeful that we've done a pretty good job of forgetting them already.
>
Forgetting what...?
Winterbay
> So it does. See the story I told a few days ago about the Harvard law
> professor. As another example, anyone who goes outside at intervals
> during the day and observes the position of the sun can see for
> themselves that it rotates around the Earth; however, the evidence that
> this happens only on Diskworld is overwhelming. Also, it is impossible
> for bumblebees to fly.
That bumblebees can fly has actually been proven by some mathematician
so that is no longer true :)
/Winterbay
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
Yeah, the original idea that they can't was assuming that their wings
are perfectly flat; when you figure in that the wings are curved and
change shape as they move, bumblebees fly just fine.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm selling my comic collection -- see http://www.watt-evans.com/comics.html
I'm serializing a novel at http://www.watt-evans.com/realmsoflight0.html
GaryN
@mud.stack.nl:
I thought it had been proved by all those damn bumblebees flying
around..;-)
Daniel Orner
> Daniel Orner wrote:
>> Lesley Weston wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Oh, I don't know... The Canadians (both French and English) have some
>>> things we would rather forget too, along with just about every other
>>> nation.
>>>
>>
>> I think that in general, Canadians' knowledge of Canadian history
>> is so woeful that we've done a pretty good job of forgetting them
>> already.
>>
> Forgetting what...?
>
I don't know. I've forgotten.
GaryN
> Daniel Orner wrote:
>> Lesley Weston wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Oh, I don't know... The Canadians (both French and English) have
>>> some things we would rather forget too, along with just about every
>>> other nation.
>>>
>>
>> I think that in general, Canadians' knowledge of Canadian history
>> is
>> so woeful that we've done a pretty good job of forgetting them
>> already.
>>
> Forgetting what...?
>
I'm sure that Canadians know a lot about their history. It's the bloody
upstart Europeans who moved there that don't. Try, for instance, "Who
discovered the North West Passage?". The Inuit will be able to tell you
his name.
Nigel Stapley
Tangentially relevant to this whole question is the following piece I've
just found:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/11/441962.html
--
Regards
Nigel Stapley
<reply-to will bounce>
Winterbay
> Winterbay <peter....@gmail.com> wrote in news:he41o4$30nv$1
> @mud.stack.nl:
>
>> Lesley Weston skrev:
>>
>>> So it does. See the story I told a few days ago about the Harvard law
>>> professor. As another example, anyone who goes outside at intervals
>>> during the day and observes the position of the sun can see for
>>> themselves that it rotates around the Earth; however, the evidence that
>>> this happens only on Diskworld is overwhelming. Also, it is impossible
>>> for bumblebees to fly.
>> That bumblebees can fly has actually been proven by some mathematician
>> so that is no longer true :)
>>
>> /Winterbay
>>
>
> I thought it had been proved by all those damn bumblebees flying
> around..;-)
>
> gary
>
No, no , no. Those guys obviously do not know what they are talking
about, way too much into practical thinking...
/Winterbay
GaryN
news:0lebg5tlldrmfrb87...@4ax.com:
> On 15 Nov 2009 16:37:11 GMT, GaryN <ga...@scaryriders.com> wrote:
>
>>I want an English parliament full of English politicians.
>
> Fair enough.
>
>
>> I want the Scottish politicians to bugger off back to Scotland,
>
> Problem - do you think we want Brown, Darling, Blair, Alexander etc
> back?
I doubt it. Can you not export them to Rhodesia, Rwanda or Equatorial
Guinea where they can't make things any worse than they currently are.
Better still give them crap rifles, inadequate vehicles, no body armour
and send the buggers to Afghanistan.
>>I want Peter Mandelson hung, drawn, quartered and buried at
>>midnight at a crossroads in an unmarked grave
>
> Was it in The News Quiz that Mandelson was referred to as entering the
> Commons from time to time and hanging from the rafters?
>
>
> John
I believe so but the person who made that comment was found shortly
afterwards drained of blood (or so it is said).
What you can or can't say about public figures is extremely confusing.
I could be sued for telling a canvasser that I think the local Labour MP
is "A complete wanker and there is no fucking way I'm going to vote
Labour"
I particularly liked the case of Andrew Marr who took out an injunction
that not only prevented the press from reporting his activities but also
prevented them from reporting that he had taken out said injunction.
Except it all went pear shaped when Private Eye challenged the
injunction preventing the reporting of the injunction and won. PE may
have it's faults but for investigative reporting it tends to be pretty
reliable (and sued on a regular basis which usually means "The bastards
have found out somthing I didn't want them to"). At least they admit
when they got it wrong.
Thomas Zahr
Exactly, if they had ANY grasp of the theoretical principles, they'd
walk.
--
Cheers,
Thomas =:-)
Lesley Weston
> Lesley Weston wrote:
>> Daniel Orner wrote:
>>> Lesley Weston wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> Oh, I don't know... The Canadians (both French and English) have
>>>> some things we would rather forget too, along with just about every
>>>> other nation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think that in general, Canadians' knowledge of Canadian history
>>> is so woeful that we've done a pretty good job of forgetting them
>>> already.
>>>
>> Forgetting what...?
>>
>
> I don't know. I've forgotten.
>
book, and that will tell us everything we need to know about Canadian
history.
Lesley Weston
> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> news:he3va6$2vaa$2...@mud.stack.nl:
>
>> Daniel Orner wrote:
>>> Lesley Weston wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> Oh, I don't know... The Canadians (both French and English) have
>>>> some things we would rather forget too, along with just about every
>>>> other nation.
>>>>
>>> I think that in general, Canadians' knowledge of Canadian history
>>> is
>>> so woeful that we've done a pretty good job of forgetting them
>>> already.
>>>
>> Forgetting what...?
>>
>
> I'm sure that Canadians know a lot about their history. It's the bloody
> upstart Europeans who moved there that don't. Try, for instance, "Who
> discovered the North West Passage?". The Inuit will be able to tell you
> his name.
But her name won't appear in the Citizenship book that's just been
published by the Gummint, so it didn't happen.
Lesley Weston
A lot of ours do. I guess they must be particularly well-read bees.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
I always assumed the bumblebee thing was like the calculation mentioned
in SoD, which "proved" kangaroos required more energy to bounce than they
could possibly acquire from their food.
In that case, what the calculation failed to take into account is that a
bounce doesn't just use up energy; the energy absorbed on landing
contributes the energy released in the next bounce. This is why a rubber
ball can do it, despite not eating at all...
--
Dave
"All those with psychokinesis, raise my hand."
The Room With No Doors, Kate Orman
Daibhid Ceanaideach
wrote:
> Thomas Zahr wrote:
>> Winterbay <peter....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> GaryN skrev:
>>>> Winterbay <peter....@gmail.com> wrote in news:he41o4$30nv$1
>>>> @mud.stack.nl:
>>>>
>>>>> Lesley Weston skrev:
>>>>>> Also, it is impossible for bumblebees to fly.
>>>>> That bumblebees can fly has actually been proven by some
>>>>> mathematician so that is no longer true :)
>>>> I thought it had been proved by all those damn bumblebees flying
>>>> around..;-)
>>> No, no , no. Those guys obviously do not know what they are talking
>>> about, way too much into practical thinking...
>>>
>>> /Winterbay
>>
>> Exactly, if they had ANY grasp of the theoretical principles, they'd
>> walk.
>
>
> A lot of ours do. I guess they must be particularly well-read bees.
The bumblebee is oddly wrought,
Aerodynamically it ought,
To find it quite impossible to fly.
But bumblebees don't know the rules,
For bumblebees don't go to schools,
They flies.
Daniel Orner
> Daniel Orner wrote:
>> Lesley Weston wrote:
>>> Daniel Orner wrote:
>>>> Lesley Weston wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> Oh, I don't know... The Canadians (both French and English) have
>>>>> some things we would rather forget too, along with just about every
>>>>> other nation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think that in general, Canadians' knowledge of Canadian
>>>> history is so woeful that we've done a pretty good job of forgetting
>>>> them already.
>>>>
>>> Forgetting what...?
>>>
>>
>> I don't know. I've forgotten.
>>
> There's a good remedy, though. We should just get the new Citizenship
> book, and that will tell us everything we need to know about Canadian
> history.
>
Yeah, I found it very odd that new citizens of Canada will most
probably find themselves better informed, for the most part, than folk
who've been living here all their lives. No comment on the *focus* of
the pamphlet, but on a test of its factual content I'd probably get most
questions wrong.
Lesley Weston
> Nigel Stapley wrote:
>
> Tangentially relevant to this whole question is the following piece I've
> just found:
>
> http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/11/441962.html
>
>
Afghanistan (except that everyone has had a go there with little
success, not just the English), and he makes the comparison himself. I
don't see his point about religion though; Christianity had already been
imposed on the Welsh from the outside, so I don't see why it matters to
them or anyone else which flavour of an alien religion they were forced
to practice.
The bit about the 1401 Punitive Laws reads rather oddly; he seems to be
objecting to the Welsh being treated the same way as the Jews. In fact,
the whole assumption that the Welsh were singled out for ill-treatment
by the Norman conquerors of Britain would probably annoy the Saxons, if
there were still any Saxons around. And the later thing about
Nonconformists affected Northern English people just as much as the Welsh.
As to the stuff about the Welsh appearance and character, see Punch
cartoons from the late nineteenth and early twentieth century; the
objects of ridicule there are the English working classes, portrayed in
much the same way. That attitude persists even now among some English,
Welsh and no doubt Scottish and Irish people, even among people who
believe themselves to be enlightened. It seems to be quite common for
conquerors to need to ridicule the people they have conquered, perhaps
to salve their consciences by showing that the subjugated are not really
human, so no wrong has been done.
But my main issue with him is his central tenet: that the English
subjugation of Wales was the first example of colonialism. Hasn't he
read any Roman history? The Englishmen who conquered half the rest of
the world certainly had, which is why the British Empire bears such
striking similarities to the Roman Empire. They may or may not have
known about the Persian Empire, but they probably hadn't read any
Chinese history, so the similarities between the British and the various
Chinese Empires must be due to convergent evolution: That's just the way
people behave, unfortunately.
He says, as you have, that the Welsh feel themselves to be inferior. As
you know, I disagree with you both on this; nobody sees themselves as
inferior, though plenty of people see themselves as having suffered
injustice. Oh, and Welsh music is not necessarily sung in the minor key:
it's sung in modes other than the predominant Ionian, except when it's
English (and other foreign) hymn tunes or competition pieces. And I only
know Welsh poetry in translation and not all that much of it, but it
seems to be mostly to do with killing Saxons and rejoicing in it;
presumably the poets couldn't distinguish between Saxons and Normans.
Nigel Stapley
> Nigel Stapley wrote:
>> Nigel Stapley wrote:
>>
>> Tangentially relevant to this whole question is the following piece
>> I've just found:
>>
>> http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/11/441962.html
>>
>>
> Well-written and thoughtful.
A bit of background: Price is currently the Plaid MP for Carmarthen East
& Dinefwr, but has announced that he is standing down at the next
election to take up a scholarship in the US. This is a great shame for
his constituents and for Welsh politics (at least in the short term), as
he is one of the very few MPs from Wales (ever) to be capable of
stringing several thoughts together without his lips moving.
However, I can understand his expressed frustration at banging his head
repeatedly against the inbred, backward-looking cloddishness and
arrogance of the Westminster village. He intends coming back from
Unclesamia in time to stand in the next National Assembly elections in
2011. If we ever do get independence, I think I'd want him to be the
first head of its government.
> The first part is reminiscent of
> Afghanistan (except that everyone has had a go there with little
> success, not just the English), and he makes the comparison himself. I
> don't see his point about religion though; Christianity had already been
> imposed on the Welsh from the outside, so I don't see why it matters to
> them or anyone else which flavour of an alien religion they were forced
> to practice.
>
Because by that time, Christianity had a distinctly local flavour and
was very different in its nature to the variety subsequently imposed
upon it.
>
> But my main issue with him is his central tenet: that the English
> subjugation of Wales was the first example of colonialism.
I don't think he makes any such claim: his claim (justifiable) is that
Wales was *England*'s first colony.
>
> He says, as you have, that the Welsh feel themselves to be inferior.
> As you know, I disagree with you both on this; nobody sees themselves as
> inferior, though plenty of people see themselves as having suffered
> injustice.
I suggest you re-read his sections on the psychology of the colonised.
It explains the process well enough to me.
> And I only
> know Welsh poetry in translation and not all that much of it, but it
> seems to be mostly to do with killing Saxons and rejoicing in it;
> presumably the poets couldn't distinguish between Saxons and Normans.
>
I'm not sure how much Welsh poetry has ever been translated reliably
into English (assuming that poetry can *ever* be translated 'reliably',
which I sorely doubt), but the type you refer to is a very small
proportion of the total even in the pre-mediaeval and mediaeval period.
What has come down to us is very varied in its subject matter and style.
Lesley Weston
> Lesley Weston wrote:
>> Daniel Orner wrote:
>>> Lesley Weston wrote:
>>>> Daniel Orner wrote:
>>>>> Lesley Weston wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, I don't know... The Canadians (both French and English) have
>>>>>> some things we would rather forget too, along with just about
>>>>>> every other nation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that in general, Canadians' knowledge of Canadian
>>>>> history is so woeful that we've done a pretty good job of
>>>>> forgetting them already.
>>>>>
>>>> Forgetting what...?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know. I've forgotten.
>>>
>> There's a good remedy, though. We should just get the new Citizenship
>> book, and that will tell us everything we need to know about Canadian
>> history.
>>
>
> Yeah, I found it very odd that new citizens of Canada will most
> probably find themselves better informed, for the most part, than folk
> who've been living here all their lives. No comment on the *focus* of
> the pamphlet, but on a test of its factual content I'd probably get most
> questions wrong.
>
ago when I took Citizenship, but now I'm so thoroughly Canadian that I
don't know any more than people who were born here.
Lesley Weston
> Lesley Weston wrote:
>> Nigel Stapley wrote:
>>> Nigel Stapley wrote:
>>>
>>> Tangentially relevant to this whole question is the following piece
>>> I've just found:
>>>
>>> http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/11/441962.html
>>>
>>>
>> Well-written and thoughtful.
>
> A bit of background: Price is currently the Plaid MP for Carmarthen East
> & Dinefwr, but has announced that he is standing down at the next
> election to take up a scholarship in the US. This is a great shame for
> his constituents and for Welsh politics (at least in the short term), as
> he is one of the very few MPs from Wales (ever) to be capable of
> stringing several thoughts together without his lips moving.
Well, there was Nye Bevan among others.
>
> However, I can understand his expressed frustration at banging his head
> repeatedly against the inbred, backward-looking cloddishness and
> arrogance of the Westminster village. He intends coming back from
> Unclesamia in time to stand in the next National Assembly elections in
> 2011. If we ever do get independence, I think I'd want him to be the
> first head of its government.
That is a loss, yes. Let's hope he gets homesick soon and re-embarks on
his political career.
>
>> The first part is reminiscent of Afghanistan (except that everyone has
>> had a go there with little success, not just the English), and he
>> makes the comparison himself. I don't see his point about religion
>> though; Christianity had already been imposed on the Welsh from the
>> outside, so I don't see why it matters to them or anyone else which
>> flavour of an alien religion they were forced to practice.
>>
>
> Because by that time, Christianity had a distinctly local flavour and
> was very different in its nature to the variety subsequently imposed
> upon it.
I don't see that that matters; it's still the wrong religion.
>
>>
>> But my main issue with him is his central tenet: that the English
>> subjugation of Wales was the first example of colonialism.
>
> I don't think he makes any such claim: his claim (justifiable) is that
> Wales was *England*'s first colony.
>
>>
>> He says, as you have, that the Welsh feel themselves to be
>> inferior. As you know, I disagree with you both on this; nobody sees
>> themselves as inferior, though plenty of people see themselves as
>> having suffered injustice.
>
> I suggest you re-read his sections on the psychology of the colonised.
> It explains the process well enough to me.
Not to me. I just can't accept the concept that anybody decides "Oh,
these people are so much better than me! I'm not going to think my crap
ideas any more, I'll think their superior ideas instead".
>
>> And I only
>> know Welsh poetry in translation and not all that much of it, but it
>> seems to be mostly to do with killing Saxons and rejoicing in it;
>> presumably the poets couldn't distinguish between Saxons and Normans.
>>
>
> I'm not sure how much Welsh poetry has ever been translated reliably
> into English (assuming that poetry can *ever* be translated 'reliably',
> which I sorely doubt), but the type you refer to is a very small
> proportion of the total even in the pre-mediaeval and mediaeval period.
> What has come down to us is very varied in its subject matter and style.
Of course. I don't know much Welsh poetry, as I said.
peachy ashie passion
> Nigel Stapley wrote:
>>>
>>> He says, as you have, that the Welsh feel themselves to be
>>> inferior. As you know, I disagree with you both on this; nobody sees
>>> themselves as inferior, though plenty of people see themselves as
>>> having suffered injustice.
>>
>> I suggest you re-read his sections on the psychology of the colonised.
>> It explains the process well enough to me.
>
> Not to me. I just can't accept the concept that anybody decides "Oh,
> these people are so much better than me! I'm not going to think my crap
> ideas any more, I'll think their superior ideas instead".
>>
Not that I've read anything you are talking about, but that one seems
commonsense to me.
It's the same way a sports team decides their current strategy is
why they are losing, and change strategies.
People look around and see that one way won, and one way lost. They
tend to decide that the winning way was superior.
Lesley Weston
Changing strategies is a lot easier than changing the fundamental basis
of your thinking. It's not just a game to be won or lost, it's your
whole life to be lived as you were brought up to live it from the
beginning, or to be changed from scratch into someone else's philosophy.
It does happen, especially if one is give to traveling to Damascus, but
it's not the norm.
Do you know anyone who believes sincerely that they, their families and
all their friends are inferior to some other group of people? Not
inferior in some particular talent or in income or whatever, just
generically inferior?
Daibhid Ceanaideach
wrote:
> Nigel Stapley wrote:
>> Lesley Weston wrote:
>>> I don't see his point about
>>> religion though; Christianity had already been imposed on the Welsh
>>> from the outside, so I don't see why it matters to them or anyone
>>> else which flavour of an alien religion they were forced to
>>> practice.
>>
>> Because by that time, Christianity had a distinctly local flavour and
>> was very different in its nature to the variety subsequently imposed
>> upon it.
>
> I don't see that that matters; it's still the wrong religion.
What makes it the wrong religion? If you go back 2,000 years or so,
*nobody* was Christian. Go back a few more millennia, and there probably
wasn't anything we'd recognise as a religion at all.
When the Normans arrived, the Welsh had been Christian for several
hundred years. St David is the only British patron saint who was actually
born in the country he represents.
Celtic or Insular Christianity was inspired by a few missionaries from
the continent, but developed by the people, as part of sub-Roman Celtic
culture. It wasn't "imposed" by some external authority; on the contrary,
the Celts seem to have been "early adopters", who converted when that was
very likely to get you *killed* by the external authority.
In fact, as the name "Insular" suggests, Celtic Christianity had very
little interest in how Christianity was seen amongst other inhabitants of
the Isles (the Anglo-Saxons), or even in Rome under Constantine. (And at
around the same time, Rome decided it had very little interest in the
British Isles, and withdrew all its legions.)
But when the Normans came along, they used their brute force and power to
sweep all that away and replace it with *their* idea of Christianity.
This being the first "wave of ecclesiastical colonialism" the piece
refers to.
Since you've been spending this entire thread insisting on the difference
between being persuaded by something, and being forced into something, it
seems strange you refuse to see the difference in this case, where it
seems a lot more clear-cut than in the other examples. They weren't
forced into it; they weren't even pressurised into it. They really did
*choose* it.
Lesley Weston
> On 21 Nov 2009, Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Nigel Stapley wrote:
>>> Lesley Weston wrote:
>
>>>> I don't see his point about
>>>> religion though; Christianity had already been imposed on the Welsh
>>>> from the outside, so I don't see why it matters to them or anyone
>>>> else which flavour of an alien religion they were forced to
>>>> practice.
>>> Because by that time, Christianity had a distinctly local flavour and
>>> was very different in its nature to the variety subsequently imposed
>>> upon it.
>> I don't see that that matters; it's still the wrong religion.
>
> What makes it the wrong religion? If you go back 2,000 years or so,
> *nobody* was Christian. Go back a few more millennia, and there probably
> wasn't anything we'd recognise as a religion at all.
Wales and the rest of the Celtic world had a viable religion that they
had evolved for themselves. When missionaries arrived to convert them to
Christianity, many people chose the new religion, yes, but it still
wasn't the one that their own culture had made, which just about
disappeared after the contact was established. All we have left is
Druids in their seedy nighties, which is as spurious as Creepy-Crowley's
nonsense. The real religion, in either case, has very little to do with it.
>
> When the Normans arrived, the Welsh had been Christian for several
> hundred years. St David is the only British patron saint who was actually
> born in the country he represents.
And who was indisputably a real historical figure; I'm not suggesting
otherwise. He sounds rather likable, too, especially in his last
instructions to his people: 'Be cheerful, keep the faith, and do those
little things which ye have seen me do and heard me say', only he
presumably said it in Welsh (or possibly Latin) and it might not
translate quite like that.
>
> Celtic or Insular Christianity was inspired by a few missionaries from
> the continent, but developed by the people, as part of sub-Roman Celtic
> culture. It wasn't "imposed" by some external authority; on the contrary,
> the Celts seem to have been "early adopters", who converted when that was
> very likely to get you *killed* by the external authority.
>
> In fact, as the name "Insular" suggests, Celtic Christianity had very
> little interest in how Christianity was seen amongst other inhabitants of
> the Isles (the Anglo-Saxons), or even in Rome under Constantine. (And at
> around the same time, Rome decided it had very little interest in the
> British Isles, and withdrew all its legions.)
Yes, imposed was probably the wrong word. But it was alien and it did
come from another culture, not that of Cymru. Before the Normans,
Britain had already been conquered by a whole bunch of other people,
including Rome. This is presumably why Rome felt justified in sending
missionaries to convert the Celtic heathen, even though their claim
(such as it was) on the country had long expired by then.
>
> But when the Normans came along, they used their brute force and power to
> sweep all that away and replace it with *their* idea of Christianity.
> This being the first "wave of ecclesiastical colonialism" the piece
> refers to.
Was it the Normans? I thought that happened quite a bit earlier - wasn't
the Synod of Whitby in the eighth century? Though the Normans added
their bit later.
>
> Since you've been spending this entire thread insisting on the difference
> between being persuaded by something, and being forced into something, it
> seems strange you refuse to see the difference in this case, where it
> seems a lot more clear-cut than in the other examples. They weren't
> forced into it; they weren't even pressurised into it. They really did
> *choose* it.
>
Certainly. Just as many Welsh people now choose to speak English. But
Christianity in any of its varieties still isn't a part of their own
culture; this just means that the influence of their conquerors started
earlier than Mr. Price suggested and with different conquerors.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
wrote:
> Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
>> On 21 Nov 2009, Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Nigel Stapley wrote:
>>>> Lesley Weston wrote:
>>
>>>>> I don't see his point about
>>>>> religion though; Christianity had already been imposed on the
>>>>> Welsh from the outside, so I don't see why it matters to them or
>>>>> anyone else which flavour of an alien religion they were forced to
>>>>> practice.
>>>> Because by that time, Christianity had a distinctly local flavour
>>>> and was very different in its nature to the variety subsequently
>>>> imposed upon it.
>>> I don't see that that matters; it's still the wrong religion.
>>
>> What makes it the wrong religion? If you go back 2,000 years or so,
>> *nobody* was Christian. Go back a few more millennia, and there
>> probably wasn't anything we'd recognise as a religion at all.
>
> Wales and the rest of the Celtic world had a viable religion that they
> had evolved for themselves.
Maybe. An equally valid interpretation of the evidence is that the
Britons (they weren't Welsh until after the Anglo-Saxons arrived) had
their own version of a religion imported from elsewhere in the Celtic
world. We don't know. All we know is that there were several related-but-
different societies who had similar-but-different religions.
To an extent, the old Britonic religion certainly did evolve to suit the
Britons (that's *why* it's different from the Hibernian or Gaulish
versions). But the point is, they did that with Christianity too. It was
based on a central concept from elsewhere, but it was definitely shaped
by the people to fit themselves.
>> When the Normans arrived, the Welsh had been Christian for several
>> hundred years. St David is the only British patron saint who was
>> actually born in the country he represents.
>
> And who was indisputably a real historical figure; I'm not suggesting
> otherwise.
And I'm not suggesting you were.
>> Celtic or Insular Christianity was inspired by a few missionaries
>> from the continent, but developed by the people, as part of sub-Roman
>> Celtic culture. It wasn't "imposed" by some external authority; on
>> the contrary, the Celts seem to have been "early adopters", who
>> converted when that was very likely to get you *killed* by the
>> external authority.
>>
>> In fact, as the name "Insular" suggests, Celtic Christianity had very
>> little interest in how Christianity was seen amongst other
>> inhabitants of the Isles (the Anglo-Saxons), or even in Rome under
>> Constantine. (And at around the same time, Rome decided it had very
>> little interest in the British Isles, and withdrew all its legions.)
>
> Yes, imposed was probably the wrong word. But it was alien and it did
> come from another culture, not that of Cymru. Before the Normans,
> Britain had already been conquered by a whole bunch of other people,
> including Rome.
Yes, none of whom had forced a religion on them. (Although the Romans did
insist that they tagged Roman names onto the end of their gods.)
> This is presumably why Rome felt justified in sending
> missionaries to convert the Celtic heathen, even though their claim
> (such as it was) on the country had long expired by then.
Like I said, when Christianity first arrived in Britain, Rome was more in
the business having missionaries killed in inventive ways. That's why I
have trouble seeing Celtic Christianity as something that was brought in
by a conquering force.
>> But when the Normans came along, they used their brute force and
>> power to sweep all that away and replace it with *their* idea of
>> Christianity. This being the first "wave of ecclesiastical
>> colonialism" the piece refers to.
>
> Was it the Normans? I thought that happened quite a bit earlier -
> wasn't the Synod of Whitby in the eighth century? Though the Normans
> added their bit later.
The Synod of Whitby was a local dispute in Northumbria, and didn't affect
the Welsh in any way, although the Ionians had a fair bit staked on it.
Like I said, by and large the Celtic Church just ignored the other
flavours of Christianity in pre-Norman Britain.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
Sorry to reply to myself, but a throwaway comment I made has just struck
me as perhaps more significant than I thought.
>(they weren't Welsh until after the Anglo-Saxons arrived)
Because if they weren't Welsh, they weren't the subject of Mr Price's
article, surely.
Wikipedia says "a distinct Welsh national identity emerged in the early
fifth century" - in other words *at around the same time or after the
rise of Celtic Christianity*.
The pagan, Brythonic culture that this society was descended from simply
isn't what Mr Price was talking about. He was talking about the Welsh.
Janaina Rudberg
in usage to the swedish "�nda", your statement conjures up an image of
Celtic gods being tattooed on the, um, behind.
/Janaina (Coat, please...)
Thomas Zahr
> On 24 Nov 2009, Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry to reply to myself, but a throwaway comment I made has just
> struck
> me as perhaps more significant than I thought.
>
> >(they weren't Welsh until after the Anglo-Saxons arrived)
Clearly they couldn't have been (called) Welsh by anybody but somebody
whose language had Germanic roots. But, presumably, they did have a name
for themselves, whatever that was.
Anyway, the people were there, irespective of the name (or even names)
they were called. Except that, possibly, they weren't in Wales (exactly)
Daibhid Ceanaideach
While my original point was really just a nitpick about the name, in
reiterating it I was making a point about the culture. The culture Mr
Price is defending in the article *isn't* the culture that existed during
the Roman period. Or rather, isn't *any* of the cultures that existed
during the Roman period[1]. The people involved may have been the
descendents of the tribes that existed their earlier, but the culture of
Brythoniaid (the name Cymru caught on later) is no more that of the
Deceangli, Ordovices, Cornovii, Demetae or Silures than Scottish culture
has much to do with the Picts.
[1]As my Celtic Civ. tutor always used to say, the important thing to
remember about the Celts is that they didn't *know* they were the Celts.
They wouldn't have seen themselves as being "one people" in any real
sense; that came later.
GaryN
<huge snip>
> Certainly. Just as many Welsh people now choose to speak English. But
> Christianity in any of its varieties still isn't a part of their own
> culture; this just means that the influence of their conquerors
> started earlier than Mr. Price suggested and with different
> conquerors.
On a vaguely related note for the Christian thing. A company nearby
recently advertised a position for an editorial assistant which ended with
the words "Must be able to show a knowledge of and enthusiasm for the books
on our list"
So I called them and asked what exactly they meant by that - the answer was
"If you don't know the bible don't bother applying"
So much for Christian charity. I think I'll remain atheist.
Lesley Weston
> On 24 Nov 2009, Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
>>> On 21 Nov 2009, Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nigel Stapley wrote:
>>>>> Lesley Weston wrote:
>>>>>> I don't see his point about
>>>>>> religion though; Christianity had already been imposed on the
>>>>>> Welsh from the outside, so I don't see why it matters to them or
>>>>>> anyone else which flavour of an alien religion they were forced to
>>>>>> practice.
>>>>> Because by that time, Christianity had a distinctly local flavour
>>>>> and was very different in its nature to the variety subsequently
>>>>> imposed upon it.
>>>> I don't see that that matters; it's still the wrong religion.
>>> What makes it the wrong religion? If you go back 2,000 years or so,
>>> *nobody* was Christian. Go back a few more millennia, and there
>>> probably wasn't anything we'd recognise as a religion at all.
>> Wales and the rest of the Celtic world had a viable religion that they
>> had evolved for themselves.
>
> Maybe. An equally valid interpretation of the evidence is that the
> Britons (they weren't Welsh until after the Anglo-Saxons arrived)
That's right; it's like using the E-word to name the Northern Aboriginal
peoples [1].
> had
> their own version of a religion imported from elsewhere in the Celtic
> world.
Not really; the Celts in what later became Britain had imported
themselves from elsewhere in what later became the Celtic world,
bringing their religion with them along with their pottery and jewelery.
There were huge migrations of peoples all over Europe and the Middle
East, and the religion would have changed in each wave while they were
moving. There were two main waves of Celts arriving in Britain over the
centuries, the P and the Q Celts, each with their own language and,
presumably, religion.
> We don't know. All we know is that there were several related-but-
> different societies who had similar-but-different religions.
>
> To an extent, the old Britonic religion certainly did evolve to suit the
> Britons (that's *why* it's different from the Hibernian or Gaulish
> versions). But the point is, they did that with Christianity too. It was
> based on a central concept from elsewhere, but it was definitely shaped
> by the people to fit themselves.
Of course. People always do that, and not just with religion.
>
<snip>
>> Before the Normans,
>> Britain had already been conquered by a whole bunch of other people,
>> including Rome.
>
> Yes, none of whom had forced a religion on them. (Although the Romans did
> insist that they tagged Roman names onto the end of their gods.)
And required that the Emperor Claudius be worshiped as a god, with
penalties for those who refused.
>
>> This is presumably why Rome felt justified in sending
>> missionaries to convert the Celtic heathen, even though their claim
>> (such as it was) on the country had long expired by then.
>
> Like I said, when Christianity first arrived in Britain, Rome was more in
> the business having missionaries killed in inventive ways. That's why I
> have trouble seeing Celtic Christianity as something that was brought in
> by a conquering force.
I've already said that it wasn't necessarily imposed by conquerors, just
that Christianity wasn't the original religion of the original
inhabitants of what became Britain, nor that of the later Celts, and
that the Celts' own religion disappeared when they became Christians. So
it doesn't matter what flavour of Christianity, since it's all alien.
However, people should be free to pursue whatever religion, and whatever
schism of that religion, they prefer, so long as they don't harm anybody
and they don't proselytise. IMO.
Checking on all this, I've just discovered that in 63 AD, well after
the Roman conquest but long before the Romans became Christians, Joseph
of Arimathea, one of Jesus' disciples, was sent to Britain to convert
the people to Christianity. But it doesn't say who sent him or whether
he was successful.
[1] Note the extreme caution. It's probably not necessary any more, but
you never know.
Lesley Weston
> On 24 Nov 2009, Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry to reply to myself, but a throwaway comment I made has just struck
> me as perhaps more significant than I thought.
>
>> (they weren't Welsh until after the Anglo-Saxons arrived)
>
> Because if they weren't Welsh, they weren't the subject of Mr Price's
> article, surely.
>
> Wikipedia says "a distinct Welsh national identity emerged in the early
> fifth century" - in other words *at around the same time or after the
> rise of Celtic Christianity*.
>
> The pagan, Brythonic culture that this society was descended from simply
> isn't what Mr Price was talking about. He was talking about the Welsh.
>
steveski
[snip]
> There were two main waves of Celts arriving in Britain over the
> centuries, the P and the Q Celts
Were they the polite ones, then?
--
Steveski
Lesley Weston
"The Scots (originally Irish but by now Scotch) were at this time
inhabiting Ireland, having driven the Irish (Picts) out of Scotland;
while the Picts (originally Scots) were now Irish (living in brackets)
and /vice versa/. [....]
The brutal Saxon invaders drove the Britons westward into Wales and
compelled them to become Welsh. [...] The country was now almost
entirely inhabited by Saxons and was therefore renamed England, and thus
(naturally) soon became C. of E. This was a Good Thing, because
previously the Saxons had worshipped some dreadful gods of their own
called Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday."
That about sums it up, I think.
Lesley Weston
> Daibhid Ceanaideach skrev:
<snip>
including Rome.
>>
>> Yes, none of whom had forced a religion on them. (Although the Romans
>> did insist that they tagged Roman names onto the end of their gods.)
>>
> I'm curious about what "the end of their gods" entails. If it's similar
> in usage to the swedish "�nda", your statement conjures up an image of
> Celtic gods being tattooed on the, um, behind.
And everywhere else, according to legend.
Lesley Weston
peachy ashie passion
> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> news:heh11j$cja$1...@mud.stack.nl:
>
> <huge snip>
>> Certainly. Just as many Welsh people now choose to speak English. But
>> Christianity in any of its varieties still isn't a part of their own
>> culture; this just means that the influence of their conquerors
>> started earlier than Mr. Price suggested and with different
>> conquerors.
>
> On a vaguely related note for the Christian thing. A company nearby
> recently advertised a position for an editorial assistant which ended with
> the words "Must be able to show a knowledge of and enthusiasm for the books
> on our list"
>
> So I called them and asked what exactly they meant by that - the answer was
> "If you don't know the bible don't bother applying"
>
> So much for Christian charity. I think I'll remain atheist.
>
> gary
>
I'm wondering if that particular thing has a reason for it, after all.
All books published would be required to fit with biblical principles
and be biblically correct, no?
I'd think a solid grounding in the foundation work would be a
reasonable job requirement.
GaryN
news:hep3d...@news4.newsguy.com:
So would you suggest that an editorial assistant for 'Carbon' should
have a degree in chemistry? Maybe an editorial assistant for 'Polymer'
should have a degree in plastics?
I've worked as an editorial assistant, and other things, for various
publishers. As long as you can spell and punctuate correctly your
knowledge of any particular subject needs to be nada.
Any factual errors are down to the author.
Lesley Weston
I'm not sure what an editorial assistant is, but when I worked for
Pergamon Press as a sub-editor [1], we were chosen for having had a
scientific education and for being literate [2]. We were always given
journals to look after that were in fields other than our own, so that
we would read the papers we were marking-up and proof-reading for
errors, not for content. It didn't work - I learned quite a bit about
geochemistry and cosmochemistry while working there, though less about
thermal engineering.
[1] I think that job is called "copy editor" now, but it could be
"editorial assistant".
[2] And for being able to soothe the savage authors and editors while
bullying the printers.
Alec Cawley
> On 19 Nov 2009, Winterbay <peter....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Lesley Weston skrev:
>>
>>> So it does. See the story I told a few days ago about the Harvard law
>>> professor. As another example, anyone who goes outside at intervals
>>> during the day and observes the position of the sun can see for
>>> themselves that it rotates around the Earth; however, the evidence
>>> that this happens only on Diskworld is overwhelming. Also, it is
>>> impossible for bumblebees to fly.
>> That bumblebees can fly has actually been proven by some mathematician
>> so that is no longer true :)
>
> in SoD, which "proved" kangaroos required more energy to bounce than they
> could possibly acquire from their food.
>
> In that case, what the calculation failed to take into account is that a
> bounce doesn't just use up energy; the energy absorbed on landing
> contributes the energy released in the next bounce. This is why a rubber
> ball can do it, despite not eating at all...
In "The Earwig's Tail", entomologist May Berenbaum tried to trace this
"bumble bees can't fly" to its source. She reckoned it traced back to
one scientist doing a back-of-the-menu calculation and saying, literally
at the dinner table, that he didn't know how they could fly.
One of the reasons he didn't know was that he modeled their wings as
rigid, whereas they are actually pretty flexible. Also, we know a lot
more about vortexes now than we did then. (That "we" being a kind of
Scientific We i.e. science knows - I claim very little knowledge of
vortexes other than they can look quite pretty).
Large Dave
This really bugs* me about this story. The scientific method works like
this:
theory: Bees can't fly because of <foo>
Observation: Bees fly
Result: Bees fly therefore <foo> is proved wrong. Need new theory or
change to old theory to include observation that that bees can fly.
Repeat until theory matches observation!
Where's the problem!
* bugs me geddit!
--
Large Dave
This space accidentally left blank
Richard Bos
> Lesley Weston wrote:
>
> > There were two main waves of Celts arriving in Britain over the
> > centuries, the P and the Q Celts
>
> Were they the polite ones, then?
You mean there is such an animal as a polite Celt?
Richard
Richard Bos
> Lesley Weston wrote:
> > There's a good remedy, though. We should just get the new Citizenship
> > book, and that will tell us everything we need to know about Canadian
> > history.
>
> Yeah, I found it very odd that new citizens of Canada will most
> probably find themselves better informed, for the most part, than folk
> who've been living here all their lives. No comment on the *focus* of
> the pamphlet, but on a test of its factual content I'd probably get most
> questions wrong.
Isn't that always the case, though, even without an official test?
There's even an Asimov story (which I'm not going to spoil by naming it
here, but see below) where this is the main plot point.
And now some spoiler space.
I mean this.
Do not read on if you think this might be relevant to you.
The story is...
Actually, I don't remember the title.
But is was a Black Widowers story.
The point was that someone was shown to be a spy because he could recite
the _second_ verse of the USAnian national anthem, which no honest
citizen can. As a plot point it's all very well, but in real life it
falls down on professional singers, people with more patriottism than is
good for them, and so on. Still, I expect it's true for most normal
people, even if not for all.
Richard
Richard Bos
> GaryN wrote:
> > On a vaguely related note for the Christian thing. A company nearby
> > recently advertised a position for an editorial assistant which ended with
> > the words "Must be able to show a knowledge of and enthusiasm for the books
> > on our list"
> >
> > So I called them and asked what exactly they meant by that - the answer was
> > "If you don't know the bible don't bother applying"
> >
> > So much for Christian charity. I think I'll remain atheist.
>
> I'm wondering if that particular thing has a reason for it, after all.
>
> All books published would be required to fit with biblical principles
> and be biblically correct, no?
>
> I'd think a solid grounding in the foundation work would be a
> reasonable job requirement.
I should certainly hope so. With editors who don't know the business
they're editing, you get Discovery Channel subtitling. Or Panorama[1].
Note that they didn't say "if you're not a Christian" - I can only
presume that an atheist who _does_ know his Bible would have a better
chance than a vague Christian who only knows the stories of the three
magical Shephers and the Easter bunny.
Richard
[1] The BBC popular pseudo-science programme, not the Dutch magazine.
The latter is even more braindead but at least doesn't _pretend_ to
be scientifically accurate.
Nigel Stapley
Bolloc
(last part omitted because I'm only three-quarters Celt. Mind you, I'm
one quarter English, so... ks!)
--
Regards
Nigel Stapley
<reply-to will bounce>
GaryN
news:2uidnbYJBtvej4vW...@brightview.co.uk:
> Richard Bos wrote:
>> steveski <stev...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Lesley Weston wrote:
>>>
>>>> There were two main waves of Celts arriving in Britain over the
>>>> centuries, the P and the Q Celts
>>> Were they the polite ones, then?
>>
>> You mean there is such an animal as a polite Celt?
>>
>
>
> Bolloc
>
> (last part omitted because I'm only three-quarters Celt. Mind you, I'm
> one quarter English, so... ks!)
>
There's no such thing as a polite Englishman/woman/person. We just
pretend to be polite to lull the Celts (and anyone else) into a false
sense of security. Then we hit them on the head with large heavy blunt
things or large heavy sharp things, or from a distance with high
velocity pointy lead things.
Actually that's pretty much a potted history of the British Empire.
Pretend to be polite, effete, wimps whose only interest is Tiffin. Then
kick the shit out of the opposition who have forgotten that we're the
descendents of Saxons and Viking and Norman invaders.
Seems to have worked quite well over the years, how many wars is a small
island nation expected to win[1]:-)
gary
[1]The USians did *not* win WW2 despite what Hollywood would have you
believe. The British Commonwealth won it and the Yanks were late
joining in, as usual.
Brian Howlett
> The USians did *not* win WW2 despite what Hollywood would have you
> believe. The British Commonwealth won it and the Yanks were late
> joining in, as usual.
Yes, but ever since then they've been determined to be *really* early
for the next one...
--
Brian Howlett - Email to From: address deleted unseen
--------------------------------------------------------------
Windows has detected that the mouse has been moved.
You must restart Windows for the new setting to take effect...
GaryN
news:f31568c3...@bhowlett.adsl24.co.uk:
> On 2 Dec, GaryN wrote:
>
>> The USians did *not* win WW2 despite what Hollywood would have you
>> believe. The British Commonwealth won it and the Yanks were late
>> joining in, as usual.
>
> Yes, but ever since then they've been determined to be *really* early
> for the next one...
And there was I thinking everyone had forgotten Not The Nine O'Clock
News...:-)