Sutton Hoo question

hippo

unread,

Dec 28, 2001, 9:20:42 AM12/28/01

to

Does anyone know if the entire site at Sutton Hoo has been excavated or if
it is now in process, or planned? Is there a publication of the lesser
burials finds? Thanks, -the Troll

Vaughan Sanders

unread,

Dec 29, 2001, 5:28:02 AM12/29/01

to

"hippo" <hi...@southsudan.net> wrote in message
news:_c%W7.3101$LQ1.9...@news2.nash1.tn.home.com...

> Does anyone know if the entire site at Sutton Hoo has been excavated or if
> it is now in process, or planned? Is there a publication of the lesser
> burials finds? Thanks, -the Troll
>
>

From Julian Richards, Blood of the Vikings.

"Although the Sutton Hoo burial contained no body, it is thought to have
been constructed to commemorate an East Anglian king. The impression left in
the soil after the timber rotted away indicated a massive ship over
twenty-four metres long. A wealth of other goods was also found, including
some forty-one items of solid gold. Even though the burial dates to the
early seventh century, well before the Vikings reached British shores, it
does suggest contact between the East Anglian kingdom and the rest of
Europe. There is a Byzantine silver dish, spoons inscribed in Greek and a
bronze bowl from the near east. But most interesting is the possible Swedish
connection.
The practice of burying ships was common in the area of Sweden around Vendel
and Valsgarde and some grave goods from Sutton Hoo bear a remarkable
similarity to objects found in burials in this part of Sweden."

Jamie

hippo

unread,

Dec 29, 2001, 10:35:18 AM12/29/01

to

"Vaughan Sanders" wrote in message

> "hippo" wrote in message

I've known this. The similarity of the jewelry to the Vendel mounds in
Sweden is so great it was once thought they came from the same maker. There
is a great deal written about the large mound and its contents but almost
nothing about the other mounds. Sutton Hoo is, after all, a gravefield. I
was wondering if the lesser burials had been excavated and published yet or
if the site was still a work in process. One other mound is also a boat
burial and there must have been other finds. I wouldn't mind having even the
pre-published field notes. It is slow going but better than nothing. The
connection with Sweden is of particular interest given that the burial is
unique in Britain as far as I know and the Saxon homeland. It does, however,
correspond almost exactly to the Vendel graves near Upsala. Were the East
Anglian Wufings a branch of the Swedish royal tree? The relationship is just
too close to be casual or accidental. For some time we have been aware of an
advanced Baltic culture having existed since the Bronze Age. Bog finds in
Denmark indicate for this early period a capacity to work metals almost
unrivaled even in the Mediterranean. Of course there are no copper or tin
deposits in the area so an advanced trade system is also implied. The
darkness of the Dark Ages in Britain may not have been so dark if regular
links with Vendel/Upsala/Lake Malaren and the Ingling Kings of the Svea can
be established as we know they existed with the Frankish Kingdom. -the Troll

Vaughan Sanders

unread,

Dec 30, 2001, 5:59:22 AM12/30/01

to

"hippo" <hi...@southsudan.net> wrote in message

news:WolX7.4708$LQ1.1...@news2.nash1.tn.home.com...

>
> "Vaughan Sanders" wrote in message
>
> > "hippo" wrote in message
>
> > > Does anyone know if the entire site at Sutton Hoo has been excavated
or
> if
> > > it is now in process, or planned? Is there a publication of the lesser
> > > burials finds? Thanks, -the Troll
> > >
> > >
> >
> > From Julian Richards, Blood of the Vikings.

snip

I presume you have searched the web,
this is the only reference I can come up with at the moment but I will keep
my eye open.

Carver, Martin * Sutton Hoo Burial Ground of Kings?* (Bm Press 1998;
University of Pennsylvania Press 1998)

BULLETIN OF THE SUTTON HOO RESEARCH
COMMITTEE 1(1983) to 8 (1993) obtainable from Boydell
and Brewer Ltd, Po Box 9, Woodbridge, Suffolk and Rochester NY.
http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/arch/staff/sites/sutton_hoo.htm

Jamie

hippo

unread,

Dec 30, 2001, 9:19:45 AM12/30/01

to

"Vaughan Sanders" wrote in message

> "hippo" wrote in message

> > > > Does anyone know if the entire site at Sutton Hoo has been excavated
> or
> > if
> > > > it is now in process, or planned? Is there a publication of the
lesser
> > > > burials finds? Thanks, -the Troll
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > From Julian Richards, Blood of the Vikings.
>
> snip
>
> I presume you have searched the web,
> this is the only reference I can come up with at the moment but I will
keep
> my eye open.
>
> Carver, Martin * Sutton Hoo Burial Ground of Kings?* (Bm Press 1998;
> University of Pennsylvania Press 1998)
>
> BULLETIN OF THE SUTTON HOO RESEARCH
> COMMITTEE 1(1983) to 8 (1993) obtainable from Boydell
> and Brewer Ltd, Po Box 9, Woodbridge, Suffolk and Rochester NY.
> http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/arch/staff/sites/sutton_hoo.htm
>
> Jamie

Thanks for that. At least I know the work is complete and will get the
bulletins which, one hopes, may cover details of the lesser burials. Most of
what is on the web is exactly like what one finds in University Libraries:
1) Published in the 50's-60's
2) Mono focused on the 'Redwald' barrow and or restorations in the British
Museum and or arguments who's burial it might have been. Numnatists run on
about the location of Frankish mints and weapons experts on pattern welded
sword blades. There is a wider implication here that seventh century East
Anglia was not nearly so isolated as once thought. While the odd bit of
silver service from the Eastern Empire is not too remarkable, the fact that
Redwald's entire panoply was almost uniquely identical to that found in a
very similar burial in Sweden and nowhere else, I think, is. -the Troll

Jonathan Jarrett

unread,

Jan 10, 2002, 12:07:30 PM1/10/02

to

In article <5oFX7.7228$LQ1.2...@news2.nash1.tn.home.com>,

hippo <hi...@southsudan.net> wrote:
>
>"Vaughan Sanders" wrote in message
>
>> "hippo" wrote in message
>
>> > > > Does anyone know if the entire site at Sutton Hoo has been excavated
>> or
>> > if
>> > > > it is now in process, or planned? Is there a publication of the
>lesser
>> > > > burials finds? Thanks, -the Troll
>>

>> I presume you have searched the web,
>> this is the only reference I can come up with at the moment but I will
>keep
>> my eye open.
>>
>> Carver, Martin * Sutton Hoo Burial Ground of Kings?* (Bm Press 1998;
>> University of Pennsylvania Press 1998)
>>
>> BULLETIN OF THE SUTTON HOO RESEARCH
>> COMMITTEE 1(1983) to 8 (1993) obtainable from Boydell
>> and Brewer Ltd, Po Box 9, Woodbridge, Suffolk and Rochester NY.
>> http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/arch/staff/sites/sutton_hoo.htm
>>
>> Jamie
>
>Thanks for that. At least I know the work is complete and will get the
>bulletins which, one hopes, may cover details of the lesser burials. Most of
>what is on the web is exactly like what one finds in University Libraries:
>1) Published in the 50's-60's
>2) Mono focused on the 'Redwald' barrow and or restorations in the British
>Museum and or arguments who's burial it might have been. Numnatists run on
>about the location of Frankish mints and weapons experts on pattern welded
>sword blades. There is a wider implication here that seventh century East
>Anglia was not nearly so isolated as once thought. While the odd bit of
>silver service from the Eastern Empire is not too remarkable, the fact that
>Redwald's entire panoply was almost uniquely identical to that found in a
>very similar burial in Sweden and nowhere else, I think, is. -the Troll

Out on a limb here but on the one occasion I met Carver he told us
work was still going on. He's moved north on a different project (the
Pictish one we're going on about in another thread) but someone else is
still digging the lesser mounds. Carver's summary of the site is called
_Sutton Hoo: Burial Ground of Kings?_ (British Museum 1998), which is a
tourist book in some ways but as ever with Carver gives him a chance to
get sharpening his axes. He doesn't think the identification with Raedwald
is provable or necessary and sees this large mound as one example of a
wider phenomenon of increased-impact pagan monuments on the frontier with
Christianity. He thinks therefore that it's a symptom of an ill cult to
throw that much into display. Karl Hauck, who is a very wise man indeed,
long(er) may he live, thinks similar things can be seen in Germany, and
textually waves vaguely at the Irminsul without committing himself.

John Hines's Ph.D. work went on proving that migration-period East
Anglia had a lot to do with Scandinavia (published as _The Scandinavian
Character of Anglian England in the pre-Viking period_ (B. A. R. British
Series 124, Oxford 1984)) so I imagine the connection might be explained
there. Carver would say it was just a matter of one merchant with two sets
of silver to flog, I reckon (though I may do him a disservice); I like you
reckon there's some kind of connection and I think it surely must have
been a royal site but possibly earlier than Raedwald.

Idea I like, but couldn't prove or begin to substantiate
offhand: if there was never a body in the grave could it have been a
shrine? A grave for a god, or ancestor-figure or combination of
both? There's so much at the site of similar construction period that it
surely must have been put up to be used somehow, not just as
memorial... But as I say just a guess. Yours,
Jon Jarrett
--
Jonathan Jarrett Cambridge/London
jjar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk early medieval history
01223 514989 tea & spacerock
----------------------------------------------------------

hippo

unread,

Jan 12, 2002, 12:18:44 PM1/12/02

to

"Jonathan Jarrett" wrote in message

> In article hippo wrote:
> >
> >"Vaughan Sanders" wrote in message

> >Thanks for that. At least I know the work is complete and will get the

I wouldn't think he would given the Irminsul had almost certainly been
around for a while before Christianity was felt to be a threat, was a cult
site and not a burial, and that the mainland Saxons had not evolved kingship
until quite late if at all. I think we accept the notion that the idea of
royal burials stems from Denmark/Sweden which is the only area with a
developed royal tradition in the Germanic world in the fourth century CE
with the exception of tribes in Poland and the Baltic littoral derived from
there. Since we can date the events in Beowulf to about mid fifth century, I
suspect the idea of burying kings in ships with their panoply and wealth had
probably been around for some time and had nothing whatever to do with
competing with Christianity. Religion among the Germans, like most things,
was highly individual and not 'national' at all except in Denmark/Sweden to
a limited extent. There was no priest class but rather the pater familias
performed the function for the family/clan in whatever fashion he wished to
whatever gods he felt the need to propitiate. Religion, as far as we can
determine, was simply not as important a force with them as with the Celts
or Mediterranean peoples.

> John Hines's Ph.D. work went on proving that migration-period East
> Anglia had a lot to do with Scandinavia (published as _The Scandinavian
> Character of Anglian England in the pre-Viking period_ (B. A. R. British
> Series 124, Oxford 1984)) so I imagine the connection might be explained
> there. Carver would say it was just a matter of one merchant with two sets
> of silver to flog, I reckon (though I may do him a disservice); I like you
> reckon there's some kind of connection and I think it surely must have
> been a royal site but possibly earlier than Raedwald.

I agree with both. Fine things were being produced as nearby as Kent
although not with zoomorphic decoration. It wouldn't have been necessary to
buy Swedish equipment from head to toe.

> Idea I like, but couldn't prove or begin to substantiate
> offhand: if there was never a body in the grave could it have been a
> shrine? A grave for a god, or ancestor-figure or combination of
> both? There's so much at the site of similar construction period that it
> surely must have been put up to be used somehow, not just as
> memorial... But as I say just a guess. Yours,
> Jon Jarrett

It may have been a cenotaph to a king lost in war or at sea or even a
cremation burial with scattered ashes impossible to detect. I once had a
special interest in armaments and spend a great deal of time reading Oakshot
and others who are, by nature of their subject, not limited by perceived
boundaries. -the Troll

Jonathan Jarrett

unread,

Jan 12, 2002, 2:17:47 PM1/12/02

to

In article <Ud_%7.46375$LQ1.13...@news2.nash1.tn.home.com>,

I may remember the Irminsul bit wrongly. As for the rest, I'm not
sure where Carver collects his attack, but I think it's there in that book
(which I have yet to read, embarrassingly, having myself picked it up from
his recent article on the Picts, which is:

M. Carver, "Conversion and Politics on the Eastern Seaboard of
Britain: some archaeological indications" in B. E. Crawford (ed.),
_Conversion and Christianity in the North Sea World_, St. Andrews House
Papers 8 (St. Andrews 1998), pp. 11-40.

I note that he wasn't saying this of East Anglia in 1986, when he
contributed an article to Bassett's _Origins of Saxon Kingdoms_ but he
seems to be saying it everywhere else he can now.

The Karl Hauck article of which I'm thinking is: "Der
Missionsauftrag Christi und das Kaisertum Ludwigs des Frommen" in
P. Godman & R. Collins (edd.), _Charlemagne's Heir: new perspectives on
the reign of Louis the Pious_ (Oxford 1990), pp. 275-296. My notes don't
mention the Irminsul once so I'm probably wrong about that. he does
however state the display-in-response-to-threat theory I mention at
p. 283, although his main axe at this point is the use of Roman Imperial
imagery in sacral kingship's self-image as the political situation in
Northern Germany codified, and he also discusses Sutton Hoo in similar
wise at pp. 284-286. I think Karl Hauck's work is brilliant but largely
because it's written in German I can understand, someone who knows the
early archaeology better may want to tell me he's not well-regarded and
knacker my point. (Had these notes typed up on the computer, you see... )

I'm not saying, `go read this before you criticise', just
emphasising that otherwise sensible-appearing people have also thought
this stuff.

>> John Hines's Ph.D. work went on proving that migration-period East
>> Anglia had a lot to do with Scandinavia (published as _The Scandinavian
>> Character of Anglian England in the pre-Viking period_ (B. A. R. British
>> Series 124, Oxford 1984)) so I imagine the connection might be explained
>> there. Carver would say it was just a matter of one merchant with two sets
>> of silver to flog, I reckon (though I may do him a disservice); I like you
>> reckon there's some kind of connection and I think it surely must have
>> been a royal site but possibly earlier than Raedwald.
>
>I agree with both. Fine things were being produced as nearby as Kent
>although not with zoomorphic decoration. It wouldn't have been necessary to
>buy Swedish equipment from head to toe.

Um. That would surely depend on where one's natural links were
though. Kent would be pretty Frankish-flavoured at that time. Even if it
wasn't a matter of politics to stay within the North Sea province (if
you'll accept a slight back-dating of Hodges's concept here), where there
were well-established routes to and from Norway at least, if not Sweden
directly, the Frankish-looking stuff might just not be in fashion. Also,
of course, buying that much from far afield is a splendid way of showing
off, which is what luxury goods is all about, no? One doesn't get this
kind of stuff on the cheap :-) Which again isn't to disagree with you but
I don't think the availability of Kentish stuff is really a heavy factor.

>> Idea I like, but couldn't prove or begin to substantiate
>> offhand: if there was never a body in the grave could it have been a
>> shrine? A grave for a god, or ancestor-figure or combination of
>> both? There's so much at the site of similar construction period that it
>> surely must have been put up to be used somehow, not just as
>> memorial... But as I say just a guess. Yours,
>

>It may have been a cenotaph to a king lost in war or at sea or even a
>cremation burial with scattered ashes impossible to detect. I once had a
>special interest in armaments and spend a great deal of time reading Oakshot
>and others who are, by nature of their subject, not limited by perceived
>boundaries. -the Troll

Cremation with scattered ashes is held to be unusual. But then, of
course, it doesn't show up so we don't know it wasn't done _all the time_
:-) Something I'd forgotten but am reminded re-reading those notes is that
it was a prehistoric site, where use began again on a big scale all of a
sudden. I still think that much applied labour must indicate a royal
site. But it's clearly meant to say something, which makes even the burial
goods subject to the same articulation of an agenda IMO. I don't on the
other hand have the sketchiest idea what the agenda was other than
"LOOK!". Yours,

hippo

unread,

Jan 14, 2002, 1:07:22 AM1/14/02

to

> In article hippo wrote:

I too have read of an East Anglian connection with the Baltic and Vendel
graves but just can't remember where or what the angle. An idea of mine is
that of an exiled prince who may have spent time in Sweden. Almost every
court in England must have been populated with exiles given the proclivity
of the A-S kingdoms for dynastic warfare. Some of it may have something to
do with the German custom of fosterage. At any rate it might explain the
importation of unique foreign burial customs and equipment at the same time.
It might also explain your idea of a statement. The Yngling kings of Sweden
had been in business since probably the first century BCE with the result
that the relative importance of the institution was much greater there than
was likely to be the experience in England. In Sweden the kingship had
definite religious significance although we aren't prepared to say exactly
what it was. The Heimskringla seems to indicate the Swedish kings were
sometimes sacrificed in bad times as we believe was the practice among the
Celts. Perhaps our exiled prince returned to claim his East Anglian kingdom
with an enhanced view of the importance of kingship and a new idea of how
one should be buried; the statement being 'here am I in proper state'.

> >I agree with both. Fine things were being produced as nearby as Kent
> >although not with zoomorphic decoration. It wouldn't have been necessary
to
> >buy Swedish equipment from head to toe.

> Um. That would surely depend on where one's natural links were
> though. Kent would be pretty Frankish-flavoured at that time. Even if it
> wasn't a matter of politics to stay within the North Sea province (if
> you'll accept a slight back-dating of Hodges's concept here), where there
> were well-established routes to and from Norway at least, if not Sweden
> directly, the Frankish-looking stuff might just not be in fashion. Also,
> of course, buying that much from far afield is a splendid way of showing
> off, which is what luxury goods is all about, no? One doesn't get this
> kind of stuff on the cheap :-) Which again isn't to disagree with you but
> I don't think the availability of Kentish stuff is really a heavy factor.

You may be right. Perhaps the Kentish jewelry is just magnificent to me.
Frankish stuff had a distinct Eastern flavor in this period, however, which
the Kentish work does not until quite a bit later.

> >It may have been a cenotaph to a king lost in war or at sea or even a
> >cremation burial with scattered ashes impossible to detect. I once had a
> >special interest in armaments and spend a great deal of time reading
Oakshot
> >and others who are, by nature of their subject, not limited by perceived
> >boundaries. -the Troll
>
> Cremation with scattered ashes is held to be unusual. But then, of
> course, it doesn't show up so we don't know it wasn't done _all the time_
> :-) Something I'd forgotten but am reminded re-reading those notes is that
> it was a prehistoric site, where use began again on a big scale all of a
> sudden. I still think that much applied labour must indicate a royal
> site. But it's clearly meant to say something, which makes even the burial
> goods subject to the same articulation of an agenda IMO. I don't on the
> other hand have the sketchiest idea what the agenda was other than
> "LOOK!". Yours,
> Jon Jarrett

I agree it has to be a royal site. That is one of the reasons the secondary
burials are so important. Do they precede the main burial or follow it or
both? What is the total spread of years the site was used? We may logically
presume its use was ended with conversion, so how long after the principle
burial can the lesser be dated? Are the artifacts also imported? What is the
relative status of the lesser burials? I'm glad to hear the site is still
being excavated because it means the definitive site report has yet to be
published. The impatient can wait as long as the last spade is still
digging. -the Troll

Jonathan Jarrett

unread,

Jan 17, 2002, 5:53:45 PM1/17/02

to

In article <uAu08.50885$LQ1.15...@news2.nash1.tn.home.com>,

hippo <hi...@southsudan.net> wrote:
>
>"Jonathan Jarrett" wrote in message
>>

>> Cremation with scattered ashes is held to be unusual. But then, of
>> course, it doesn't show up so we don't know it wasn't done _all the time_
>> :-) Something I'd forgotten but am reminded re-reading those notes is that
>> it was a prehistoric site, where use began again on a big scale all of a
>> sudden. I still think that much applied labour must indicate a royal
>> site. But it's clearly meant to say something, which makes even the burial
>> goods subject to the same articulation of an agenda IMO. I don't on the
>> other hand have the sketchiest idea what the agenda was other than
>> "LOOK!". Yours,
>

>I agree it has to be a royal site. That is one of the reasons the secondary
>burials are so important. Do they precede the main burial or follow it or
>both? What is the total spread of years the site was used? We may logically
>presume its use was ended with conversion, so how long after the principle
>burial can the lesser be dated? Are the artifacts also imported? What is the
>relative status of the lesser burials? I'm glad to hear the site is still
>being excavated because it means the definitive site report has yet to be
>published. The impatient can wait as long as the last spade is still
>digging. -the Troll

With eerie synchronicity I discover that I should be going, on the
3rd of April, to a report on the current state of play at the site by
Angela Evans (who she is I don't (yet) know), under the auspcies of the
British Archaeological Association. I shall endeavour to deliver the group
a precis :-) Certainly there is as yet no site report, but at Cambridge
University Library at least they seem to regard the Research Committee
Bulletin as an ongoing series... Looking at Boydell & Brewer's site
however suggests it's a dead duck. Hmm. Not sure where to go after
that. Still, I shall find out eventually, yours,
Jon

Rabid Bee

unread,

Jan 17, 2002, 8:02:19 PM1/17/02

to

unread,

Jan 18, 2002, 9:26:39 AM1/18/02

to

Andrew Chaplin <abch...@yourfinger.home.com> wrote in message

news:1127d2$9a9...@parl5.parl.gc.ca...

> > To borrow a line from an ad campaign on this side of the pond: "I can't
see
> a difference, can you?"
>

Oh yes ... Socialists (i.e. the hard left) are commies. New Labour is
Thatcherite.

(Here we go ......!)

Surreyman

Andrew Chaplin

unread,

Jan 18, 2002, 9:35:34 AM1/18/02

to

"a.spencer3" <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message

news:lfW18.47446$_x4.6...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...

>
> Andrew Chaplin <abch...@yourfinger.home.com> wrote in message
> news:1127d2$9a9...@parl5.parl.gc.ca...
> > > To borrow a line from an ad campaign on this side of the pond: "I
can't
> see
> > a difference, can you?"
> >
> Oh yes ... Socialists (i.e. the hard left) are commies. New Labour is
> Thatcherite.

I meant the difference between a social democrat and a "New Socialist". To
me, they seem races of the same species.

Jonathan Jarrett

unread,

Jan 18, 2002, 10:59:28 AM1/18/02

to

In article <3C477420...@btinternet.com>,

Rabid Bee <rabi...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Jonathan, as you seem to be the grubby buff,
>
>what do you think of Archaeology Theory?

Ohmigawd. I'm a historian, I'm not sure I'm allowed to have an
opinion on archaeology :-) Particularly not the theory. I only know enough
to tentatively use the stuff relevant to my fields, I can't keep up with
the whole discipline. But, since you ask...

>One of my colleagues at Blackwells has just started writing a PhD about
>invisible archaeologists (I think that means studying the archaeologists
>rather than their work). She was boring me silly yesterday, talking
>about how archaeology might be able to give a voice to socialist history
>where history has been high-jacked by the establishment (with particular
>reference to mining in the north west).

Damned if I see how, to be honest. You might be able to get at the
living conditions of the miners, but hell we know about that
already. George Orwell and so forth. I mean, if she's honestly talking
about socialism surely there's ample documentation from all sides of the
question. If, on the other hand, she simply means taking a socialist
approach to older questions (when *is* she working on?) then I'd have
thought that certainly digging (or however she intends to suggest
people proceed) would give you context you could trust, but I honestly
don't see how it could say anything that isn't written down somewhere
alreadyt. I know nothing of the field though so it may be much more
obvious than that.

>Seems even more bollocks than the normal shite these grubbers talk
>about. (Who cares about a couple of shards from a muddy field in
>Dumfries, where are the documents!?...)

Well, to me archaeological results are another sort of document
with their own problems of interpretation. It's source material that needs
special treatment; of course, all source material does but this branch of
it requires particular skills and its problems are not well understood by
those who should use it. I don't think anyone should neglect archaeology
but everyone who isn't schooled in it to at least a limited extent should
be careful about using it.

On the other hand by now any archaeologists reading will
presumably be apopleptic over another historian not treating their field
as a separate discipline with its own impact to make. I adhere firmly to
the `handmaid of history' theory but that's largely because I think
history is the study of past, without further qualifications, so anything
that tells you about an aspect of the past without giving you the whole
picture is such a handmaid IMO. Documentary study included. I don't think
archaeology can give you a whole picture; where archaeology is all you
have you only have a partial picture, because it doesn't tell you anything
about short-term interactions which made the people's lives
differentiated. But it does give you information that's otherwise very
very difficult to extract from documents.

Um, is that just a rant or was that sort of what you were
after? Yours,
Jon Jarrett

Jonathan Jarrett

unread,

Jan 18, 2002, 11:03:37 AM1/18/02

to

In article <3C48061E...@btinternet.com>,

*HARRUMPH cough splutter* I'm not sure President Blair would like
you to say that of his nice sensible supporters. I think `socialism' is
most definitely a dirty word for New Labour. It has nasty connotations
like bottom-up decision-making. That doesn't work very well as a
justification for democracy-by-steering-committee.

And in any case the majority of voters is a *very* long way from
the majority of the population. So everyone else could still be glowering
at the term and shunning Americans who used it carelessly :-) Yours,

hippo

unread,

Jan 18, 2002, 11:21:26 AM1/18/02

to

"Rabid Bee" wrote in message

> > Jeez, that's what we just need: an Archaeological apology for Socialism.

It is astounding to see that admission in print. Many Americans are
socialists too, they just don't admit it in public or often even to
themselves. Actually the term means slightly different things in both
places. Here it implies an intentional extreme which had too much in common
with Communism that it gets tarred with the same brush. Where I am from
'liberal' is a fairly strong term gets one in trouble as a politician and in
social settings. Again here individual rights/responsibility and the idea of
an intentionally weak central government are conservative ideas unlike with
you. -the Troll

a.spencer3

unread,

Jan 18, 2002, 11:42:17 AM1/18/02

to

Andrew Chaplin <abch...@yourfinger.home.com> wrote in message

news:1127d2$9232...@parl5.parl.gc.ca...

> I meant the difference between a social democrat and a "New Socialist".
To
> me, they seem races of the same species.

Again, Blair & Co. out-Thatcherite the Social Democrats, and I much mourn
the loss of the latter.

Surreyman

Andrew Chaplin

unread,

Jan 18, 2002, 12:11:01 PM1/18/02

to

Ah, I see the problem, I'm using lower case, as a political scientist might.

--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out, and
change "home" to "rogers".)

"a.spencer3" <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message

news:HfY18.48883$_x4.7...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...

Andrew Ness

unread,

Jan 18, 2002, 12:55:04 PM1/18/02

to

"hippo" <hi...@southsudan.net> wrote in message

news:aYX18.2190$Pj4.3...@news2.nash1.tn.home.com...

While I don't know that a majority of voters would call themselves
socialists, and certainly the Labour party has been avoiding the 's' word
since the rise of Mr Blair, some socialist ideas are common to all the main
British parties. (Even the Tories don't say they want to scrap the NHS)
I don't think socialism ever really got off the ground in the states. As far
as I know the trade unions were associated with organised crime (in the
public mind if not in reality) and they didn't have the examples of
right-wing nastiness right on their doorstep to show them what a bad idea
that is.
What worries me is that the only vaguely leftist party in England today is
the Lib Dems who are only the third party. The whole world seems determined
to goosestep into right-wing accord, the lack of serious dissent to the
'Bomb the Starving' campaign is not a good sign.

NSY

William Black

unread,

Jan 18, 2002, 3:37:32 PM1/18/02

to

Andrew Ness <ne...@liverpoolfc.net> wrote in message
news:a29q2s$349$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...

> While I don't know that a majority of voters would call themselves
> socialists, and certainly the Labour party has been avoiding the 's' word
> since the rise of Mr Blair,

'The Labour Party is a Socialist party'

Tony Blair during what became known as 'The clause four debate'

And I am inclined to believe him on current evidence.

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

Vaughan Sanders

unread,

Jan 18, 2002, 3:20:23 PM1/18/02

to

"hippo" <hi...@southsudan.net> wrote in message
news:aYX18.2190$Pj4.3...@news2.nash1.tn.home.com...
>

Don't forget, nobody voted Maggie out, the 5th columnist who stabbed her in
the back are either in the Liberal party or history now. Also don't forget 4
out of 5 votes didn't go to T B's Nu Lab.

"You can't fool all of the people all the time"

Jamie

Vaughan Sanders

unread,

Jan 18, 2002, 5:15:02 PM1/18/02

to

"Rabid Bee" <rabi...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:3C48061E...@btinternet.com...

Not me Alex,
and NHS patience's being sent to France for treatment will go down just
about as well as Dennis Healy having to ask the World
Bank for a hand out.

Jamie

PS, piss up in a Brewery, springs to mind.

hippo

unread,

Jan 18, 2002, 5:57:56 PM1/18/02

to

"Andrew Ness" wrote in message

> "hippo" wrote in message

> > "Rabid Bee" wrote in message

You're right about the Tories. Met a couple of Tory MPs at a social
gathering over here and they sounded pretty lefty to me. You are right too
about the lack of dissent to the campaign against international terrorism.
It shouldn't be surprising there is a lack of sympathy in the West for any
group who would intentionally kill 3000 innocent people. If it truly
matters, you will probably find the Western campaign to date has probably
saved more of the starving than it has killed. The reaction of the civil
population in Kabul and elsewhere in Afghanistan is something of an
indication of what the 'starving' feel and think. -the Troll

Rabid Bee

unread,

Jan 18, 2002, 7:14:52 PM1/18/02

to

> You're right about the Tories. Met a couple of Tory MPs at a social
> gathering over here and they sounded pretty lefty to me. You are right too
> about the lack of dissent to the campaign against international terrorism.
> It shouldn't be surprising there is a lack of sympathy in the West for any
> group who would intentionally kill 3000 innocent people. If it truly
> matters, you will probably find the Western campaign to date has probably
> saved more of the starving than it has killed. The reaction of the civil
> population in Kabul and elsewhere in Afghanistan is something of an
> indication of what the 'starving' feel and think.

I still haven't spoken to anybody over here who has been in favour of
the war. As for lack of dissent, at least one paper the other had a
full page set of headlines about the 1,000s of innocents killed that the
government is trying to cover up. I'm told that there is gathering
momentum on the back-benches to force the government to debate allied
treatment of Afghan soldiers; the government are trying to suppress any
discussion of the subject, which hardly suggests that they feel whiter
than white.

Cheers, Alex

Rabid Bee

unread,

Jan 18, 2002, 7:20:20 PM1/18/02

to

> Ohmigawd. I'm a historian, I'm not sure I'm allowed to have an
> opinion on archaeology :-)

I humbly apologise! I had mistakenly got the impression that you were a
grubber. Now I find that you are in fact thoroughly respectable. As to
her subject, buggered if I know what she means. I'm going to put her in
touch with a Marxist in the department, as he'll like her :-)

For the record, I don't think she's a "Socialist" trying to attack the
bourgeoisie or anything; I think it was an example of how there might be
a use for archaeology to supplement history, or indeed replace it where
history fails. If she's in tomorrow, I may try and talk more about it.

We're planning a four-hour car trip to Wycombe next month; I could have
a lot of time discussing this...

Cheers, Alex

hippo

unread,

Jan 18, 2002, 10:00:43 PM1/18/02

to

"Rabid Bee" wrote in message

> > You're right about the Tories. Met a couple of Tory MPs at a social

Alex, we haven't been mistreating anyone. With a very few exceptions, Afghan
prisoners were handled by fellow Afghans and, for the most part, released.
Captured Chechens, Pakistanis and Arabs haven't fared too well but neither
do most foreigners captured by the Afghans. The captured Taliban and
terrorist leaders that we have established as indeed leaders, have been
dragged off for questioning and, one hopes, trial. They are not having fun
in the sun exactly, but neither are they being mistreated or tortured. It is
necessary to discover the identities of the other cell members still at
large. It is a legitimate function of governments to defend its people and
I, for one, make no apologies. If you think there is the possibility of
reasoning with these Islamic fundamentalists it is because you know nothing
about them. As an historian you should be well aware of the excesses of
religious zeal. There is nothing to choose between bin Laden and Adolph
Hitler except political sophistication. Support for the war here is running
about 90% with perhaps 1 or 2% opposed. In a modern democracy it is almost
impossible to get 90% of a population to agree with anything. It astounds me
that, after Omagh, there would be any residual sympathy for terrorists in
Britain. -the Troll

CG Luxford

unread,

Jan 19, 2002, 11:05:03 AM1/19/02

to

On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, hippo wrote:
>
> Jeez, that's what we just need: an Archaeological apology for Socialism.
> We've had feminists and racists, nationalists and bigots, environmentalists
> and new agers, why not Socialists?

And just as Marxism is beginning to go out of fashion in academic
circles.

Chris,

Jonathan Jarrett

unread,

Jan 19, 2002, 12:45:53 PM1/19/02

to

In article <a2a12c$n29$1...@paris.btinternet.com>,

William Black <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Andrew Ness <ne...@liverpoolfc.net> wrote in message
>news:a29q2s$349$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>> While I don't know that a majority of voters would call themselves
>> socialists, and certainly the Labour party has been avoiding the 's' word
>> since the rise of Mr Blair,
>
>'The Labour Party is a Socialist party'
>
>Tony Blair during what became known as 'The clause four debate'
>
>And I am inclined to believe him on current evidence.

As a natural sceptic I'd be interested to hear what current Labour
actions you consider to show socialist tendencies. Or do you have some
particularly perjorative use of the word socialism in mind? Yours,
Jon

Rabid Bee

unread,

Jan 19, 2002, 1:39:31 PM1/19/02

to

>It astounds me
> that, after Omagh, there would be any residual sympathy for terrorists in
> Britain. -the Troll

I'll answer more fully later, but I'll just pick up on this.

Where did I indicate sympathy for terrorists? I said I had failed to
find support for the war; that is not the same thing. Whilst I abhor
terrorism, I've never been concvinced that a conventional war will
iradicate terrorism. I still feel that a) you'll never catch all of the
cells b) without trying to understand why the USA is under attack,
you'll never end the attacks and c) violence will only breed a new
genration who hate the USA.

If Omagh has left any true legacy, it is a hatred of violence, which
ever side carries it out. Northern Ireland only proves that violence in
retaliation to violence only forms a horrid cycle, that is very hard to
break.

Cheers, alex

ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk

unread,

Jan 19, 2002, 4:39:52 PM1/19/02

to

In article <3C477420...@btinternet.com>, rabi...@btinternet.com
(Rabid Bee) wrote:

> (Who cares about a couple of shards from a muddy field in
> Dumfries, where are the documents!?...)

Actually there are cases where archaeologists might help. For example
on the Canal system there are one or two sites where we know there was
a working inclined plane but we have no detailed knowledge of how they
worked.

Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion

hippo

unread,

Jan 19, 2002, 11:18:18 PM1/19/02

to

"Rabid Bee" wrote in message

> >It astounds me

> > that, after Omagh, there would be any residual sympathy for terrorists
in
> > Britain. -the Troll
>
> I'll answer more fully later, but I'll just pick up on this.

> Where did I indicate sympathy for terrorists? I said I had failed to
> find support for the war; that is not the same thing.

You are right of course. Here the very few who oppose the war seem to
believe somehow that the US deserved to be attacked and, by extension, the
terrorists are some kind of agent of divine justice. There has been a
movement in this country, now mostly silent, in support of Arab claims in
Israel and elsewhere. The bin Laden group are no in any way to be considered
economically deprived or downtrodden. They are religious fanatics who hate
everything West. At first we were told Bin Laden's issue was the presence of
US troops in Saudi Arabia. We now know he intended to destroy the West, our
technology, our culture and our religions.

Whilst I abhor
> terrorism, I've never been concvinced that a conventional war will
> iradicate terrorism. I still feel that a) you'll never catch all of the
> cells b) without trying to understand why the USA is under attack,
> you'll never end the attacks and c) violence will only breed a new
> genration who hate the USA.

This has been anything but a conventional war. The US is under attack
because we represent to fanatical Muslims the strongest power likely to
resist their expansion and the target most likely to increase their prestige
if successfully attacked.

> If Omagh has left any true legacy, it is a hatred of violence, which
> ever side carries it out. Northern Ireland only proves that violence in
> retaliation to violence only forms a horrid cycle, that is very hard to
> break.
>
> Cheers, alex

That's a wonderful idea and philosophy which, however, has never, and
regrettably probably never will, fit in with our species. One of the reasons
I read in History was to be made immune from surprises by the actions of our
fellow men. One of the things it taught me is that we are neither perfect
nor perfectible; one must take us as we are or be doomed to unhappiness in
dealing with the race. It also taught me that turning the other cheek only
works if one is willing to be beaten to death. Terrorists work on the
principle of using whatever means necessary to impose their minority will
upon a majority population or polity. If they choose violence than we are
justified in returning it if we can see no other way. The Moslem terrorists,
coming as they do from a non-Western culture with non-Western values, can
not be understood or judged in a Western humanist context. -the Troll

hippo

unread,

Jan 19, 2002, 11:19:57 PM1/19/02

to

"CG Luxford" wrote in message

Don't get too complacent. Some people never learn. -the Troll

William Black

unread,

Jan 20, 2002, 8:28:23 AM1/20/02

to

Jonathan Jarrett <jjar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:XJy*0W...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...

> In article <a2a12c$n29$1...@paris.btinternet.com>,
> William Black <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Andrew Ness <ne...@liverpoolfc.net> wrote in message
> >news:a29q2s$349$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> >> While I don't know that a majority of voters would call themselves
> >> socialists, and certainly the Labour party has been avoiding the 's'
word
> >> since the rise of Mr Blair,
> >
> >'The Labour Party is a Socialist party'
> >
> >Tony Blair during what became known as 'The clause four debate'
> >
> >And I am inclined to believe him on current evidence.
>
> As a natural sceptic I'd be interested to hear what current Labour
> actions you consider to show socialist tendencies. Or do you have some
> particularly perjorative use of the word socialism in mind? Yours,

Well as I consider myself a Socialist it certainly wasn't a nasty comment.

I think this government is doing the best it can to ameliorate the ghastly
excesses of the Tories over the previous fifteen years without doing too
much damage to the economy.

Their actions over the railways are constructive, they are trying to do
their best with the NHS and are avoiding the clutches of the vampires in the
banks and ghouls of the press.

In other words, I'm reasonably happy with them and think they are doing as
well as can be expected.

For this opinion I expect to be call a Communist, a lefty, a naïf, easily
swindled, a liar and probably a child molester.

I am none of these things but it is the fate of anyone who expresses
moderate opinions on Usenet.

CG Luxford

unread,

Jan 20, 2002, 10:19:27 AM1/20/02

to

On Sun, 20 Jan 2002, hippo wrote:
> "CG Luxford" wrote in message
> > On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, hippo wrote:
>
> > > Jeez, that's what we just need: an Archaeological apology for Socialism.
> > > We've had feminists and racists, nationalists and bigots,
> > > environmentalists and new agers, why not Socialists?
> >
> > And just as Marxism is beginning to go out of fashion in academic
> > circles.
>

> Don't get too complacent. Some people never learn.

Well, Marxist History, for all its flaws, seems preferable to the
Postmodern approach that's beginning to replace it.

Chris,

Jonathan Jarrett

unread,

Jan 20, 2002, 10:31:42 AM1/20/02

to

In article <a2eglm$euo$1...@paris.btinternet.com>,

William Black <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Jonathan Jarrett <jjar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
>news:XJy*0W...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>> In article <a2a12c$n29$1...@paris.btinternet.com>,
>> William Black <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >'The Labour Party is a Socialist party'
>> >
>> >Tony Blair during what became known as 'The clause four debate'
>> >
>> >And I am inclined to believe him on current evidence.
>>
>> As a natural sceptic I'd be interested to hear what current Labour
>> actions you consider to show socialist tendencies. Or do you have some
>> particularly perjorative use of the word socialism in mind? Yours,
>
>Well as I consider myself a Socialist it certainly wasn't a nasty comment.
>
>I think this government is doing the best it can to ameliorate the ghastly
>excesses of the Tories over the previous fifteen years without doing too
>much damage to the economy.

And I think they've done this by retaining Kenneth Clarke's
policies and backing down from them in the face only of oncoming
depression.

>Their actions over the railways are constructive, they are trying to do
>their best with the NHS and are avoiding the clutches of the vampires in the
>banks and ghouls of the press.

Their actions over the railways have not yet happened. The amount
that needs spending has now been recommended to the government, as has a
recommendation that the management levels be stripped out thoroughly and
attempts made to recruit more engineers and have railwaymen run the
enterprise. None of this has yet happened, nor has any subsidy yet been
allocated. Furthermore, all these ideas were mooted under (and admittedly
ignored by) the Tories. And this, mark you, has taken six years of Labour
government, to define what it is that needs doing in such a way that it
may or may not at some point form policy, subject to Treasury veto.

The NHS has suddenly had more money poured into it. I'm informed
by those I know who work in it that this has made things worse, as it has
been poured into infrastructure only and the still terribly underpaid and
overworked staff are now utterly unable to cope with the increase in
demand on the services they're supposed to be able to man. The NHS needs
more nurses and doctors, and it's not getting them, while the workload on
the existing ones has just gone *up*. This, also, has taken six years, and
has in some people's views come about only because Gordon Brown has
decided Tony's iron hand is no longer on the steering wheel.

They're also raising taxes to do it, as well as upping the stealth
taxes still, at least one of which they said they wouldn't do. It does
need doing of course, but Labour has never admitted this because it said
it was going to save money by ending Tory mismanagement. In which great
cause we have seen further expansions of the Civil Service and public
money well spent on the Millennium Dome.

>In other words, I'm reasonably happy with them and think they are doing as
>well as can be expected.

I think there are two simple things which I would expect of a
government calling itself socialist; the imposition of a
democratically-elected second house to replace the Lords, rather than just
shutting the Lords down and using the Commons as little as possible, and
the abolition of the downright fascist Criminal Justice Act, which is only
unenforceable because the courts think it ridiculous and which would be a
godesnd to a real hard-right goverment, as will be the new RIP Act and
the new anti-terrorism legislation, all of which arrogate court powers and
control of the police to the Home Office and allow bypassing of normal
civil rights, which I think you will agree is a socialist issue. Both of
these were manifesto pledges which required no major investment and should
have been done within months and they have been left to rot. Straw and
Blunkett have been more right-wing than Michael Howard as Home Secretary,
no mean achievement, and Blair has endorsed them all the way.

>For this opinion I expect to be call a Communist, a lefty, a naïf, easily
>swindled, a liar and probably a child molester.
>
>I am none of these things but it is the fate of anyone who expresses
>moderate opinions on Usenet.

I shall do none of those things, but it would be out of keeping
with what I say above if I didn't suggest that you may not be paying close
enough attention. If you're satisfied with this government, I stand
considerably further to the left than do you and will look out for that
end of the abuse myself. Yours,
Jon Jarrett

John Cartmell

unread,

Jan 20, 2002, 10:22:43 AM1/20/02

to

In article <a2eglm$euo$1...@paris.btinternet.com>, William Black

<black_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I think this government is doing the best it can to ameliorate the
> ghastly excesses of the Tories over the previous fifteen years without
> doing too much damage to the economy.

> Their actions over the railways are constructive, they are trying to do
> their best with the NHS and are avoiding the clutches of the vampires in
> the banks and ghouls of the press.

> In other words, I'm reasonably happy with them and think they are doing
> as well as can be expected.

> For this opinion I expect to be call a Communist, a lefty, a naïf,
> easily swindled, a liar and probably a child molester.

There's only one of those accusations that could hold water and I'd prefer
to suggest that you're simply an optimist.
If only more people were optimistic!

--
John Cartmell
Fleur Designs - Manchester UK http://www.cartmell.demon.co.uk
~ designer craft products ~ information products ~ information services ~
Original (and unique) Board Games designed using RISC OS computers

hippo

unread,

Jan 20, 2002, 11:32:52 AM1/20/02

to

Marxist history is no history at all. The theory was developed from an early
industrial age perspective and the history was invented to fit the argument.
I don't think there is a developed Postmodern anything defined as yet. As
far as I can see we are still stumbling around in the dark with the usual
finger in the dyke approach to just about every of problem (infinitely
preferable to shoving the human race into a defined mould for which it is
not suited). If you see a pattern developing I do not I'd like to hear about
it. -the Troll

a.spencer3

unread,

Jan 20, 2002, 1:33:05 PM1/20/02

to

William Black <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a2eglm$euo$1...@paris.btinternet.com...

>
> For this opinion I expect to be call a Communist, a lefty, a naïf,
easily
> swindled, a liar and probably a child molester.
>

Not at all (well you could pick just two of six!).

They're doing all of these things. But they're having to depart remarkably
from 'socialist' policies to try and achieve it. Surprise, surprise!
I don't over-like 'em, but no way would I want either of the other two there
instead given their current states.

Surreyman

a.spencer3

unread,

Jan 20, 2002, 1:38:41 PM1/20/02

to

Jonathan Jarrett <jjar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message

news:kPh*3I...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...

> If you're satisfied with this government, I stand
> considerably further to the left than do you and will look out for that
> end of the abuse myself.

Agree with most of the preceding snips! The stealth taxes are amongst the
worst - the UK doesn't seem to realise that its future pension schemes have
been slashed in eventual value (whatever the equity market does).

But who would you currently vote for instead?

My major fears of going more left are beautifully outlined at the beginning
of Forsyth's '4th. Protocol'!

Surreyman

a.spencer3

unread,

Jan 20, 2002, 1:50:05 PM1/20/02

to

Rabid Bee <rabi...@btinternet.com> wrote in message

news:3C49BD67...@btinternet.com...

> >Whilst I abhor
> terrorism, I've never been concvinced that a conventional war will
> iradicate terrorism. I still feel that a) you'll never catch all of the
> cells b) without trying to understand why the USA is under attack,
> you'll never end the attacks and c) violence will only breed a new
> genration who hate the USA.
>

So what do you do?
a/ If you don't catch all of the cells, it must do some good to catch
some/most.
b/ If the USA understands 'why' it's being attacked, what does it do,
overturn its foreign/economic policy to pacify them?
c/ Violence has just recently already bred a new generation of people who
now hate the terrorists.

I'm not attacking your thoughts. God knows 'subterranean' warfare has
achieved nothing in Northern Ireland - I still don't know why the SAS &
similar didn't/couldn't wipe out the terrorist groups within a year or two
way back. It appears to naive me a relatively easy, concentrated, compact
little target.

And you're up against illogical thinking. Remember the Palestinian boy with
his father who was shot in the street about 2 years ago? I was talking with
a moderate Jordanian in Aqaba at the time, and he was bewailing about the
nasty Israelis who could do such a thing to a little child. So I
(tentatively!) asked about the Israeli school bus blown up not so long
before. The reaction was 'What's that got to do with it?'!

I have a horrible feeling that world terrorism is going to become like
Northern Ireland and Israel/Palestine - ingrained opinions that are
unsolvable.

Surreyman

William Black

unread,

Jan 20, 2002, 1:51:47 PM1/20/02

to

a.spencer3 <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message

news:m2E28.92232$_x4.9...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...

I think that probably I agree. I'd like something a bit further left
myself, but I'm doing better than I did under the Tories anyway.

The current lot of Tories are completely useless, desperately trying to
cling to a philosophy (if you can dignify it with that word) that is
outdated and repellent to most of the people in the country, and having all
the PR skills of a nightclub bouncer.

The Liberals seem to be a bit like John Lennon towards the end of his life,
all the right causes for all the wrong reasons...

a.spencer3

unread,

Jan 20, 2002, 1:54:32 PM1/20/02

to

hippo <hi...@southsudan.net> wrote in message

news:eyr28.8555$Pj4.1...@news2.nash1.tn.home.com...

>
The Moslem terrorists,
> coming as they do from a non-Western culture with non-Western values, can
> not be understood or judged in a Western humanist context. -the Troll
>

I'm very glad that you just managed to include the word 'terrorists'.
There's nothing wrong with non-Western cultures with non-Western values.
We, if you like, are simply non-Eastern cultures with non-Eastern values.

Surreyman

William Black

unread,

Jan 20, 2002, 4:22:30 PM1/20/02

to

a.spencer3 <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message

news:iiE28.92319$_x4.9...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...

> - I still don't know why the SAS &
> similar didn't/couldn't wipe out the terrorist groups within a year or two
> way back. It appears to naive me a relatively easy, concentrated, compact
> little target.
>

Because an effective 'whipe out' would have produced two things

1. Dead innocents, the targeting isn't infallible
2. A repulsion amongst some of the thinking people on the side of the
government of the day

Number '1' brings international problems, see Israel...

Number '2' looses UK elections. Most people don't seem to realise that UK
elections swing on about 60 marginal seats and less than 100,000 people.

The entrenched voters don't matter, which is why most governments spend
very little on inner cities and deeply rural counties, they spend the cash
on the sprawling suburbs of a few great cities and the parts of the cities
people want to party in.

All else being equal, if you offend a few teachers and it can be five years
sitting on the other side of the house, which is the position the Major
administrations found themselves in.

The Labour Party, of course, had Molam and Mandelson to sort the Irish out.
The idea of having to deal with a clever and academic woman followed by a
homosexual Jewish spin doctor so appalled both sides that they gave in
rather than even contemplate whatever Tony Blair was going to find to send
down the NI Office next.

Bob Arctor

unread,

Jan 20, 2002, 6:06:40 PM1/20/02

to

in article iiE28.92319$_x4.94...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com, a.spencer3
at a.spe...@ntlworld.com wrote on 20/1/02 6:50 pm:

>
> I'm not attacking your thoughts. God knows 'subterranean' warfare has
> achieved nothing in Northern Ireland - I still don't know why the SAS &
> similar didn't/couldn't wipe out the terrorist groups within a year or two
> way back. It appears to naive me a relatively easy, concentrated, compact
> little target.

Firstly, The "terrorist groups" opposed to the British state were deemed by
it to be criminal rather than military. Secondly they were British citizens
and as such were entitled to due process rather than summary execution. I
suppose we could have employed Trident to take out the whole of West
Belfast, but I imagine the Americans might have had a problem with that...

Eliminating the leadership of an domestic terrorist organisation is
obviously an achievable military task. However, the state-sanctioned murder
of fellow citizens has the effect of politicizing previously non-hostile
groups. How far do you have to push a moderate Irish nationalist before he
becomes an extremist? Murder his brother perhaps.

Your logic is reminiscent of the Vietnam War. The Americans lost the war of
"hearts and minds" because their indiscriminate brutality ensured that not
even the recipients of their favour, the South Vietnamese, could be relied
upon. "In order to save the village we had to destroy it" - you do remember
that don't you?

Bob

Jonathan Jarrett

unread,

Jan 20, 2002, 6:16:05 PM1/20/02

to

In article <C7E28.92255$_x4.94...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>,

a.spencer3 <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>Jonathan Jarrett <jjar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
>news:kPh*3I...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>> If you're satisfied with this government, I stand
>> considerably further to the left than do you and will look out for that
>> end of the abuse myself.
>
>Agree with most of the preceding snips! The stealth taxes are amongst the
>worst - the UK doesn't seem to realise that its future pension schemes have
>been slashed in eventual value (whatever the equity market does).
>
>But who would you currently vote for instead?

Um, if it wasn't apparent I'm a Lib Dem by now I'd better 'fess
up... Have been for some years, expect to still be in some more because
they won't have got in and I won't be equally disillusioned about their
performance in government... Yours,

hippo

unread,

Jan 20, 2002, 9:48:11 PM1/20/02

to

"a.spencer3" wrote in message

> hippo wrote in message

> The Moslem terrorists,

> > coming as they do from a non-Western culture with non-Western values,
can
> > not be understood or judged in a Western humanist context. -the Troll

> I'm very glad that you just managed to include the word 'terrorists'.
> There's nothing wrong with non-Western cultures with non-Western values.
> We, if you like, are simply non-Eastern cultures with non-Eastern values.
>
> Surreyman

'Just managed'? I agree there is nothing wrong with non-Western cultures or
values. They just do not behave like Western ones and must not be expected
to respond in the same way. That is one of the problems our media and State
Dept. have; judging the Moslem world against a Western yardstick. I would
have thought you would have agreed. -the Troll

unread,

Jan 21, 2002, 3:46:28 AM1/21/02

to

Bob Arctor <parall...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:B870FE00.4FA2%parall...@ntlworld.com...

> Your logic is reminiscent of the Vietnam War. The Americans lost the war
of
> "hearts and minds" because their indiscriminate brutality ensured that not
> even the recipients of their favour, the South Vietnamese, could be relied
> upon. "In order to save the village we had to destroy it" - you do
remember
> that don't you?

There's a big difference between indiscriminate brutality and efficient
targeting of known individuals.
I was by no means advocating the Nam-type mass bombing - obviously
disastrous.

Surreyman

Andrew Ness

unread,

Jan 20, 2002, 5:00:25 PM1/20/02

to

"William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> I think this government is doing the best it can to ameliorate the ghastly

> excesses of the Tories over the previous fifteen years without doing too
> much damage to the economy.
>
> Their actions over the railways are constructive, they are trying to do
> their best with the NHS and are avoiding the clutches of the vampires in
the
> banks and ghouls of the press.
>
> In other words, I'm reasonably happy with them and think they are doing
as
> well as can be expected.
>
> For this opinion I expect to be call a Communist, a lefty, a naïf,
easily
> swindled, a liar and probably a child molester.

I certainly wouldn't call you any of those things. But the railways? I think
you've rather shot yourself in the foot with that one. Well into a second
term and the tracks are in the worst state since they were built!

> I am none of these things but it is the fate of anyone who expresses
> moderate opinions on Usenet.

Sad but true. I find posting something a bit radical now and then sort of
makes up for it.

NSY

Andrew Ness

unread,

Jan 20, 2002, 5:03:18 PM1/20/02

to

"hippo" <hi...@southsudan.net> wrote in message

news:UiC28.10895$Pj4.1...@news2.nash1.tn.home.com...

> I don't think there is a developed Postmodern anything defined as yet.

Nor will there be. The moment there is, it will cease to be post-modernism.

NSY

unread,

Jan 21, 2002, 2:32:49 PM1/21/02

to

"hippo" <hi...@southsudan.net> wrote in message

news:4qZ28.14077$Pj4.2...@news2.nash1.tn.home.com...

I was talking about Postmodernism in terms of the movement, not simply as a
literal phrase.

NSY

Rabid Bee

unread,

Jan 21, 2002, 6:21:56 PM1/21/02

to

> You may not be right about universal morality. That's what I meant about
> Western humanism. The Muslim movement which came out of the desert was an
> expansionist, proselytizing and intolerant movement, ruthless and murderous.

No different from Christianity then.

Cheers, Alex

unread,

Jan 22, 2002, 7:08:21 PM1/22/02

to

If it's part of the "Introducing ..." series, with cartoons to introduce
complicated social science and philosophical subjects, we stock it at
work. Are you genuinely looking for a copy? Send me your details by
mail, if you are, and I'll get one posted out to you.

Cheers, Alex

Andrew Ness

unread,

Jan 23, 2002, 5:05:28 AM1/23/02

to

"Rabid Bee" <rabi...@btinternet.com> wrote in message

news:3C4DFEF9...@btinternet.com...

I _have_ a copy. Somewhere...
But thanks for the offer.

NSY

Bob Arctor

unread,

Jan 23, 2002, 3:45:53 PM1/23/02

to

in article CDk38.17726$Pj4.3...@news2.nash1.tn.home.com, hippo at
hi...@southsudan.net wrote on 22/1/02 9:15 pm:

> Great, thanks. The implication in the thread was that there was some kind of
> political movement, direction or philosophy called 'postmodern' and I just
> couldn't think of any. Part of that may be that we are too close to the time
> to notice. Some day they might call it the Great Peace; the period in
> history worldwide where fewer people have died in war than any other since
> probably the European Bronze Age. -the Troll
>

Surely, you jest.

What about the million dead in Rwanda, half a million in Iraq, countless
thousands butchered in Bosnia and Chechnya. People die in paramilitary war
in Palestine and Israel every day. In America and Afghanistan thousands have
perished in so-called holy war and infinite justice.

If this is the Great Peace, why does it feel so much like Perpetual War?

Love,

Bob

hippo

unread,

Jan 24, 2002, 12:16:40 AM1/24/02

to

"Bob Arctor" wrote in message

> in article hippo wrote on 22/1/02 9:15 pm:

That is because you want to think of it that way for reasons that have
nothing to do with history. For most of its existence on earth men have
lived in a tribal/clan society which was almost constantly at war. It is
what tribes/clans did between sowing and the harvest. I begin the period at
the European bronze age because it is at that point we have evidence and
records. I suspect it really began a long time before that but can't prove
it. The situation in Rwanda was just one of those tribal conflicts which has
been going on in Africa for thousands of years. You mention it only because
of its comparative rarity today. Remember the Zulu Ndebele were in the
process of exterminating the Shona when stopped by Cecil Rhodes; not
defeating, not conquering, not absorbing, but exterminating. The several
thousands killed in Northern Ireland by the IRA and in Spain by ETA in the
past 30 years are a joke compared to the hundred million killed in modern
times in Europe alone. Read history, it should cheer you up. Next time you
visit Mexico City, ask what the temple complex was built for and be glad you
live now and not then. -the Troll

CG Luxford

unread,

Jan 26, 2002, 12:25:24 PM1/26/02

to

On Sun, 20 Jan 2002, hippo wrote:
> "CG Luxford" wrote in message
> > On Sun, 20 Jan 2002, hippo wrote:
>
> > > > > Jeez, that's what we just need: an Archaeological apology for
> > > > > Socialism.
> > > > > We've had feminists and racists, nationalists and bigots,
> > > > > environmentalists and new agers, why not Socialists?
> > > >
> > > > And just as Marxism is beginning to go out of fashion in academic
> > > > circles.
> > >
> > > Don't get too complacent. Some people never learn.
> >
> > Well, Marxist History, for all its flaws, seems preferable to the
> > Postmodern approach that's beginning to replace it.
>
> Marxist history is no history at all. The theory was developed from an early
> industrial age perspective and the history was invented to fit the argument.

I'm not sure I'd entirely agree with that perspective. Essentially
Marxist History is Whig History with added class conflict.

> I don't think there is a developed Postmodern anything defined as yet.

No, and it doesn't really mean anything outside architecture and art
ayway. This, however, has not prevented it from becoming a fashionable
approach to most (if not all) academic disciplines in the humanities.

Essentially it seems to involve questioning everything and droning on
about narratives.

Not that there's anything wrong about questioning everything.

Chris,

Mekon

unread,

Jan 26, 2002, 5:18:25 PM1/26/02

to

"William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:a2eglm$euo$1...@paris.btinternet.com...

(snip)
>
> Well as I consider myself a Socialist it certainly wasn't a nasty comment.
>
Me too.

(snip)

>
> For this opinion I expect to be call a Communist, a lefty, a naïf,
easily
> swindled, a liar and probably a child molester.

I have been called most of those. the funny thing was, when I worked for a
couple of unions as a table thumper, I was considered right wing by my
colleagues. When I went into business, I was regarded as a leftwing looney
by my staff and business partner.

(BTW whats a "naif"?)

>
> I am none of these things but it is the fate of anyone who expresses
> moderate opinions on Usenet.
>

> --
Which is the cross we bear.

Mekon

unread,

Jan 26, 2002, 5:22:52 PM1/26/02

to

"a.spencer3" <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:ykQ28.63022$WQ1.9...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...

Don't let it go to your head, it won't last!

Mekon

hippo

unread,

Jan 26, 2002, 6:17:34 PM1/26/02

to

"CG Luxford" wrote in message

> hippo wrote:

> > > > > > Jeez, that's what we just need: an Archaeological apology for
> > > > > > Socialism.
> > > > > > We've had feminists and racists, nationalists and bigots,
> > > > > > environmentalists and new agers, why not Socialists?
> > > > >
> > > > > And just as Marxism is beginning to go out of fashion in academic
> > > > > circles.
> > > >
> > > > Don't get too complacent. Some people never learn.
> > >
> > > Well, Marxist History, for all its flaws, seems preferable to the
> > > Postmodern approach that's beginning to replace it.

> > Marxist history is no history at all. The theory was developed from an
early
> > industrial age perspective and the history was invented to fit the
argument.

> I'm not sure I'd entirely agree with that perspective. Essentially
> Marxist History is Whig History with added class conflict.

.....and an economic twist and one world end game.

> > I don't think there is a developed Postmodern anything defined as yet.

> No, and it doesn't really mean anything outside architecture and art
> ayway. This, however, has not prevented it from becoming a fashionable
> approach to most (if not all) academic disciplines in the humanities.
>
> Essentially it seems to involve questioning everything and droning on
> about narratives.
>
> Not that there's anything wrong about questioning everything.
>
> Chris,

I didn't think there was and am glad to hear I haven't been entirely asleep.
I think the academics, who are the folk most likely to believe in the idea
of an intellectually derived solution for the world's problems, always
question most when their last experiment has failed. This makes them
insecure until they have cooked up another 'solution'. I can't wait to see
what is next. -the Troll

John Cartmell

unread,

Jan 26, 2002, 6:50:42 PM1/26/02

to

In article <RWF48.13394$Ni2....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,

Mekon <blankotank...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> (BTW whats a "naif"?)

naive

Naif is less used in English and is the male form in French (AFAIK).

--
Wakefield RISC OS Show 2002 18th & 19th May 2002
for show details e-mail: show...@wacg.org.uk
or see: http://www.wakefieldshow.org.uk/2002/

Andrew Chaplin

unread,

Jan 26, 2002, 9:37:22 PM1/26/02

to

Mekon wrote:
>
> "William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a2eglm$euo$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
>
> (snip)
> >
> > Well as I consider myself a Socialist it certainly wasn't a nasty comment.
> >
> Me too.
>
> (snip)
> >
> > For this opinion I expect to be call a Communist, a lefty, a naïf,
> easily
> > swindled, a liar and probably a child molester.
>

> (BTW whats a "naif"?)

The masculine form of naïve, more usually "naïf" as Mr. Black put it
since the two vowels do not form a dipthong or whatever. It is a
sucker, a gull-ible, a nin-cow-poop.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger."
out, and change "home" to "rogers".)

CG Luxford

unread,

Jan 27, 2002, 8:32:58 AM1/27/02

to

On Sat, 26 Jan 2002, hippo wrote:
> "CG Luxford" wrote in message
> > hippo wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Jeez, that's what we just need: an Archaeological apology for
> > > > > > > Socialism.
> > > > > > > We've had feminists and racists, nationalists and bigots,
> > > > > > > environmentalists and new agers, why not Socialists?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And just as Marxism is beginning to go out of fashion in academic
> > > > > > circles.
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't get too complacent. Some people never learn.
> > > >
> > > > Well, Marxist History, for all its flaws, seems preferable to the
> > > > Postmodern approach that's beginning to replace it.
>
> > > Marxist history is no history at all. The theory was developed from an
> early
> > > industrial age perspective and the history was invented to fit the
> argument.
>
> > I'm not sure I'd entirely agree with that perspective. Essentially
> > Marxist History is Whig History with added class conflict.
>
> .....and an economic twist

Which is where the class conflict comes in - in a Marxian analysis
class is based solely on economic power.

> and one world end game.

Not necessarily - we are talking about Marxist historiography, not
Marxist philosophy. It would probably be more accurtate to refer to it
as the Marxian approach to history, rather than Marxist, but nobody ever
does.

Even those historians who clearly are Marxists are not necessarily
revolutionary Marxists, nor are they necessarily

> > > I don't think there is a developed Postmodern anything defined as yet.
>
> > No, and it doesn't really mean anything outside architecture and art
> > ayway. This, however, has not prevented it from becoming a fashionable
> > approach to most (if not all) academic disciplines in the humanities.
> >
> > Essentially it seems to involve questioning everything and droning on
> > about narratives.
> >
> > Not that there's anything wrong about questioning everything.
>

> I didn't think there was and am glad to hear I haven't been entirely asleep.
> I think the academics, who are the folk most likely to believe in the idea
> of an intellectually derived solution for the world's problems, always
> question most when their last experiment has failed. This makes them
> insecure until they have cooked up another 'solution'. I can't wait to see
> what is next.

Probably some variation on what has gone before. Currently there are
trends towards both fragmentation - Black History, Women's History etc -
and interdisciplinarianism. Both of these are attributable to the
"postmodern" approach, though fragmentation, especially the two
examples I gave, has its roots in Marxist historiography.

Chris,

hippo

unread,

Jan 27, 2002, 10:07:42 AM1/27/02

to

"CG Luxford" wrote in message

> hippo wrote:

> > > > Marxist history is no history at all. The theory was developed from
an
> > early
> > > > industrial age perspective and the history was invented to fit the
> > argument.

> > > I'm not sure I'd entirely agree with that perspective. Essentially
> > > Marxist History is Whig History with added class conflict.
> >
> > .....and an economic twist
>
> Which is where the class conflict comes in - in a Marxian analysis
> class is based solely on economic power.

> > and one world end game.

> Not necessarily - we are talking about Marxist historiography, not
> Marxist philosophy. It would probably be more accurtate to refer to it
> as the Marxian approach to history, rather than Marxist, but nobody ever
> does.

You are right except as the idea of a united world is only necessary and
desirable when 'history' proves the need.
Blurring the history and philosophy is natural since the one was coloured to
reinforce the other. I'll even admit to a certain knee-jerk reaction to the
very term having fought the bastards for three decades. It isn't often
appreciated today what a near thing it was. It is much easier to sell a
socio-economic system that promises everything for nothing to a mostly
uneducated world than to defend one which works but isn't free or pretty.
It's worse that it was the intellectuals got taken in first when they should
have known better.

I can agree with interdisciplinariansim. It is odd to find it and
fragmentation at the same time. There is a University this side (Miami,
Ohio) with a new program promoting the interdisciplinary approach, but only
the one. The others still see it as treason to wander across the hall. -the
Troll

CG Luxford

unread,

Jan 27, 2002, 11:16:02 AM1/27/02

to

On Sun, 27 Jan 2002, hippo wrote:
> "CG Luxford" wrote in message
> > hippo wrote:
>
> > > > > Marxist history is no history at all. The theory was developed from
> an
> > > early
> > > > > industrial age perspective and the history was invented to fit the
> > > argument.
>
> > > > I'm not sure I'd entirely agree with that perspective. Essentially
> > > > Marxist History is Whig History with added class conflict.
> > >
> > > .....and an economic twist
> >
> > Which is where the class conflict comes in - in a Marxian analysis
> > class is based solely on economic power.
>
> > > and one world end game.
>
> > Not necessarily - we are talking about Marxist historiography, not
> > Marxist philosophy. It would probably be more accurtate to refer to it
> > as the Marxian approach to history, rather than Marxist, but nobody ever
> > does.
>
> You are right except as the idea of a united world is only necessary and
> desirable when 'history' proves the need.
> Blurring the history and philosophy is natural since the one was coloured to
> reinforce the other. I'll even admit to a certain knee-jerk reaction to the
> very term having fought the bastards for three decades.

Fought the bastards? We may be talking at cross purposes here.
Departmental infighting can get a bit fractious at times, but would not
normally turn into a 30 year war.

> It isn't often appreciated today what a near thing it was.

What a near thing what was? I am talking about differing fashions in
approaches to historical writing, what are you talking about?

> It is much easier to sell a socio-economic system that promises everything
> for nothing to a mostly uneducated world than to defend one which
> works but isn't free or pretty.
> It's worse that it was the intellectuals got taken in first when they
> should have known better.
>

Intellectuals are more likely to see the flaws in capitalism, because
they are opoerating outside the economy.

Mind you, I think most are likely to be Keynsian rather than Marxist.
Except, of course, there was never a Keynsian approach to history.

> > > > > I don't think there is a developed Postmodern anything defined as
> yet.
> > >
> > > > No, and it doesn't really mean anything outside architecture and art
> > > > ayway. This, however, has not prevented it from becoming a fashionable
> > > > approach to most (if not all) academic disciplines in the humanities.
> > > >
> > > > Essentially it seems to involve questioning everything and droning on
> > > > about narratives.
> > > >
> > > > Not that there's anything wrong about questioning everything.
> > >
> > > I didn't think there was and am glad to hear I haven't been entirely
> asleep.
> > > I think the academics, who are the folk most likely to believe in the
> idea
> > > of an intellectually derived solution for the world's problems, always
> > > question most when their last experiment has failed. This makes them
> > > insecure until they have cooked up another 'solution'. I can't wait to
> see
> > > what is next.
> >
> > Probably some variation on what has gone before. Currently there are
> > trends towards both fragmentation - Black History, Women's History etc -
> > and interdisciplinarianism. Both of these are attributable to the
> > "postmodern" approach, though fragmentation, especially the two
> > examples I gave, has its roots in Marxist historiography.
>

> I can agree with interdisciplinariansim.

It is certainly a direction which should end up yielding only positive
results.

> It is odd to find it and fragmentation at the same time.

It is, and sometimes within the same university.

> There is a University this side (Miami, Ohio) with a new program promoting
> the interdisciplinary approach, but only the one. The others still see
> it as treason to wander across the hall.

Given that US university students typically study other subjects, beside
their "major", this surprises me.

Chris,

hippo

unread,

Jan 27, 2002, 12:05:32 PM1/27/02

to

> hippo wrote:

Not in The Halls but in the real world, begging the argument if the old
Soviet Union much resembled a Marxist State at all by the '60's.

> > It isn't often appreciated today what a near thing it was.
>
> What a near thing what was? I am talking about differing fashions in
> approaches to historical writing, what are you talking about?
>
> > It is much easier to sell a socio-economic system that promises
everything
> > for nothing to a mostly uneducated world than to defend one which
> > works but isn't free or pretty.
> > It's worse that it was the intellectuals got taken in first when they
> > should have known better.

> Intellectuals are more likely to see the flaws in capitalism, because
> they are opoerating outside the economy.

Right on. I've never seen that argued. It makes perfect sense. God knows
there are flaws enough to be found, but so then with us; an imperfect (and
imperfectable) system for imperfect (and imperfectable) beings.

Only for undergraduates. The Miami Ohio program is on the graduate
level. -the Troll

Tes Anderson

unread,

Jan 30, 2002, 7:32:14 PM1/30/02

to

"hippo" <hi...@southsudan.net> wrote in message news:<YMM38.309$9A5.1...@news2.nash1.tn.home.com>...

Let's not forget the Cecil Rhodes and his British South African
Company came in and exploited and killed thousands of Africans in what
is now Southern Zimbabwe...you make him sound almost like a hero...

hippo

unread,

Jan 31, 2002, 1:49:27 AM1/31/02

to

"Tes Anderson" wrote in message

> "hippo" wrote in message

> > That is because you want to think of it that way for reasons that have
> > nothing to do with history. For most of its existence on earth men have
> > lived in a tribal/clan society which was almost constantly at war. It is
> > what tribes/clans did between sowing and the harvest. I begin the period
at
> > the European bronze age because it is at that point we have evidence and
> > records. I suspect it really began a long time before that but can't
prove
> > it. The situation in Rwanda was just one of those tribal conflicts which
has
> > been going on in Africa for thousands of years. You mention it only
because
> > of its comparative rarity today. Remember the Zulu Ndebele were in the
> > process of exterminating the Shona when stopped by Cecil Rhodes;
>
>
> Let's not forget the Cecil Rhodes and his British South African
> Company came in and exploited and killed thousands of Africans in what
> is now Southern Zimbabwe...you make him sound almost like a hero...

Cecil Rhodes was a man of his time. Measured by a modern standard he might
be considered an exploiter. Judged by the time he lived, he is a great man.
We can not live to a set of standards not yet conceived. We may only live up
to those we know. -the Troll

discussion

unread,

Feb 1, 2002, 2:09:13 PM2/1/02

to

"hippo" <hi...@southsudan.net> wrote in message

news:XN568.16939$gd.37...@news2.nash1.tn.home.com...

>
> "Tes Anderson" wrote in message
>
> > "hippo" wrote in message
>
>

> Cecil Rhodes was a man of his time. Measured by a modern standard he might
> be considered an exploiter. Judged by the time he lived, he is a great
man.
> We can not live to a set of standards not yet conceived. We may only live
up
> to those we know. -the Troll
>

An interesting subject which relates to our judgement of all history.
One thing that is needed is a view on whether there is or are any
standards which can apply across the ages. From this, whether there
any real 'morals' or accepted standards of civilised behaviour.
I think that your "We may only live up to those we know. " is
mistaken. Take the 1930's in you-know-where.
[I avoid where possible any mention that might be picked up by
roving nutters]
To continue, one could have said "there was no example other
than that set by my superiors", and with a sufficient blinkered
views on the world, look what happened.
I would propose that past generations have acted with a much
stronger sense of civilised behaviour than that acted by Rhodes.
e.g. William Wiberforce and others represented the other side of the
coin.
N.H

Peter J Lusby

unread,

Feb 1, 2002, 3:02:44 PM2/1/02

to

discussion wrote:

I respectfully beg to differ. Firstly, in the 1930s in you-know-where,
you-know-who knew perfectly well that what they were doing was utterly immoral,
they just didn't care. Secondly, by your own phraseology, Wilberforce et al
were "the other side of the coin" in a debate that was ongoing at the time,
although now fairly clearly settled (some of the issues that Wilberforce
espoused, notably those on child labour, are still subject to discussion even
today!). I am firmly of the opinion that there are no moral absolutes, and that
every action must be judged in the context of the time and the culture in which
it occurs. In fact, I would go beyond that, and and say that there are actions
which are collectively acceptable, whilst being individually intolerable (for
example, corporal or capital punishment). I cannot accept that we have a right
to sit in moral judgement of other times and cultures, if we are going to judge
them by the standards of our own time and culture. This we can only do if we
are, in turn, prepared to be judged against any other external moral standard,
and I for one, do not care to be judged according to the moral code of, say
Imperial Rome, or even Regency England!

Warm regards
Peter

--
"A dust whom England bore, shaped, made aware" - Rupert Brooke - "The Soldier"

Peter J Lusby
San Diego, California, USA
www.lusby.org

Tes Anderson

unread,

Feb 1, 2002, 8:52:08 PM2/1/02

to

Peter J Lusby <p...@lusby.org> wrote...

> discussion wrote:
>
> > "hippo" <hi...@southsudan.net> wrote in message
> > news:XN568.16939$gd.37...@news2.nash1.tn.home.com...
> > >
> > > "Tes Anderson" wrote in message
> > >
> > > > "hippo" wrote in message
> > >
> > >
> <snipped>
>

> I respectfully beg to differ. Firstly, in the 1930s in you-know-where,
> you-know-who knew perfectly well that what they were doing was utterly immoral,
> they just didn't care. Secondly, by your own phraseology, Wilberforce et al
> were "the other side of the coin" in a debate that was ongoing at the time,
> although now fairly clearly settled (some of the issues that Wilberforce
> espoused, notably those on child labour, are still subject to discussion even
> today!). I am firmly of the opinion that there are no moral absolutes, and that
> every action must be judged in the context of the time and the culture in which
> it occurs. In fact, I would go beyond that, and and say that there are actions
> which are collectively acceptable, whilst being individually intolerable (for
> example, corporal or capital punishment). I cannot accept that we have a right
> to sit in moral judgement of other times and cultures, if we are going to judge
> them by the standards of our own time and culture. This we can only do if we
> are, in turn, prepared to be judged against any other external moral standard,
> and I for one, do not care to be judged according to the moral code of, say
> Imperial Rome, or even Regency England!
>
> Warm regards
> Peter

I respectably disagree...I believe that we not only have the right,
but the "moral" responsibility to examine the events of the past
regardless of who and when...Events such as the "scramble for Africa"
or "you-know-what" are way too complex to be put into definitive
categories of "good" or "evil" but they still need to be examined on a
moral level. -- Also just a question to throw out there: How
different really is "our" culture from those of early 20th century
Western Europe. I would argue that technology has obviously advanced
tremendously but the culture has not...

Best to all,
Tes

a.spencer3

unread,

Feb 2, 2002, 4:37:38 AM2/2/02

to

Tes Anderson <tesande...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cea85e41.02020...@posting.google.com...

> How
> different really is "our" culture from those of early 20th century
> Western Europe. I would argue that technology has obviously advanced
> tremendously but the culture has not...
>

In terms of personal morals, senses of personal responsibilities,
family/group loyalties, from local right up to national loyalties, etc.,
whatever makes up the behavioural culture of a nation, for better (and many
think that) or for worse, in the UK, it's largely shot.

Surreyman

Phil C.

unread,

Feb 2, 2002, 7:41:55 AM2/2/02

to

"Tes Anderson" <tesande...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cea85e41.02020...@posting.google.com...

> I respectably disagree...I believe that we not only have the right,

> but the "moral" responsibility to examine the events of the past
> regardless of who and when...Events such as the "scramble for Africa"
> or "you-know-what" are way too complex to be put into definitive
> categories of "good" or "evil" but they still need to be examined on a
> moral level. -- Also just a question to throw out there: How
> different really is "our" culture from those of early 20th century
> Western Europe. I would argue that technology has obviously advanced
> tremendously but the culture has not...

One problem is whether we regard an event as close enough in time and
culture to us for straightforward moral judgements to be relevant. Few
(I hope) would excuse you-know-what as too distant for moral judgement.
We still see it as part of our modern world and are aware of the moral
standards and perspectives of our time. Few, OTOH, would see any point
in making moral judgements about, say, Genghis Khan. The problem is that
there are no obvious lines to be drawn. At what point of separation in
time or culture does moral judgement become irrelevant?

A second problem is that "moral examination" is highly ambiguous. "I
think X was evil", "People today think X was evil", "People living at
the time thought X was evil", "If I had been living then I would have
thought that X was evil", "There are moral lessons to be learned from
X". These statements mean very different things, yet moral examination
of historical figures/events can end up as a mishmash of them. (I recall
one writer suggesting that historical events should be judged by
"critical morality" - which boils down to little more than claiming that
ones own morality transcends time and space. I think he was a Marxist -
no surprises there.)

A third problem is that the distinctions between "objective" analysis,
point of view and moral judgement are complicated and controversial. Our
language is full of value-laden words and concepts. The topics that we
see as important and the way we approach them are full of overt and
covert value judgements. On the one hand there is no such thing as
ultimate, objective truth in human affaoirs. OTOH some people
misinterpret this to mean that anyone can just declare any old
"perspective" and believe what they want.

Well, that's the problem. Anyone know the answer?
--
Phil C.
_______________________________
philandwoody"at"meem"dot"freeserve"dot"co"dot"uk

discussion

unread,

Feb 2, 2002, 9:34:00 AM2/2/02

to

First, I am trying to answer 'Peter', by using the quote from
another post. I expect his post will arrive in another 6 days,
due to my ISP being useless.
If we use our values (without prejudice), to assess the actions
in History, we can form certain judgements. I judge that Ghenghis
Khan with the same eye as I do Alexander (The Great?).
I note that both had very little care for the value of human life,
even their own. I judge this as a barbaric sign, and the further insights
I might get from viewing other actions might be enhanced.
I look for the civilising influences that historic figures and peoples
brought to the world. Sometimes, the British Empire has been
justified by efforts to point out certain advances brought to the
subject nations, but looking at the whole, if current values are
used, we have to look how these people were subjugated.
There is enough evidence of slaughter of people around the globe
to gives us an overall view, and a clue to what our Empire was
about.
I fail to see how the taking of a life or the violent abuse (corporal)
by a State comes into the logic, and a separate debate seems necessary.
As far as how our actions will be judged, then if we are found wanting
by future historians, then it is to be hoped that they take an unprejudiced
viewpoint, remembering that they too cannot be perfect.
The desire to be perfect is a useful trait, but the desire to be seen as
perfect
is like whistling in the wind.
N.H

"Tes Anderson" <tesande...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cea85e41.02020...@posting.google.com...

> Peter J Lusby <p...@lusby.org> wrote...
> > discussion wrote:
> >
> > > "hippo" <hi...@southsudan.net> wrote in message
> > > news:XN568.16939$gd.37...@news2.nash1.tn.home.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Tes Anderson" wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > > "hippo" wrote in message
> > > >
> > > >
> > <snipped>
> >
> > I respectfully beg to differ.

<snip>

hippo

unread,

Feb 4, 2002, 11:15:54 PM2/4/02

to

"discussion" wrote in message

> "hippo" wrote in message

> <snipped>

Sorry, I've been away. I disagree with you on several levels, but not that
there might be a common thread of standards or that the question is critical
to an understanding of history. The common standard used to be called
natural law: murder is murder no matter how high the killer or low the
victim, the essential equality of all men (and women), and so on. When one
is raised in a culture where common practice, expressed as a law or not, or
religious taboos, family or tribal dependency, and the like, make free will
an impossibility, then one may not be judged under natural law in exactly
the same way not even extreme Christians could condemn the ancients to Hell.
At the same time society sets the lower or forbidden standards, it also sets
the high. To use the example of Cecil Rhodes, in Victorian times
'civilizing' the native peoples of the Empire was considered exemplary by
society, the Church and State. It is totally wrong to judge him by our
modern standards just as it would to criticize adolescent homosexuality in
5th century Athens or the authority of the pater familias in 3rd century
Rome. The argument of the natural law people is that eventually we will all
be free enough of superstition, social dictates and archaic laws to bring
ourselves to a state of enlightenment. I believe we are witnesses to that
metamorphosis today. The fact that we can not even now agree what the
eventual outcome will be is another point in my argument. -the Troll

hippo

unread,

Feb 4, 2002, 11:31:33 PM2/4/02

to

"Tes Anderson" wrote in message

> Peter J Lusby wrote...

> > <snipped>

You may very well examine history to find examples to criticize modern
culture. You may not use modern moral standards to judge historic events or
people just as I may not criticize you by the moral standards of a hundred
years in the future. You are far freer personally and have far greater
resources to make moral judgments than those who have inhabited the earth
before you, still you may not be judged as perfect by those who will have
even more of both. -the Troll

Rabid Bee

unread,

Feb 5, 2002, 5:27:28 AM2/5/02

to

> to an understanding of history. The common standard used to be called
> natural law: murder is murder no matter how high the killer or low the
> victim, the essential equality of all men (and women), and so on.

Actually, I don't think people would class that as a natural law; it's
too easy to see reasons why you can legitimately kill. Going from
Hobbes, I'd re-write it to say that all people have the natural right to
life and to self-defence, including killing somebody else if necessary.

Otherwise, you run into problems of definition about what constitutes
murder. For instance, is murder still murder if the state commits it in
retribution of another murder? (Personally, I say yes).

Cheers, Alex

Phil C.

unread,

Feb 5, 2002, 7:15:20 AM2/5/02

to

"Rabid Bee" <rabi...@btinternet.com> wrote in message

news:3C5FB375...@btinternet.com...

> > to an understanding of history. The common standard used to be
called
> > natural law: murder is murder no matter how high the killer or low
the
> > victim, the essential equality of all men (and women), and so on.
>
> Actually, I don't think people would class that as a natural law; it's
> too easy to see reasons why you can legitimately kill. Going from
> Hobbes, I'd re-write it to say that all people have the natural right
to
> life and to self-defence, including killing somebody else if
necessary.

There certainly hasn't been a common standard throughout history or all
cultures. I would have thought that cultures believing in the essential
equality of all people were in a minority throughout history. We
_decide_ to deem all people morally equal. We don't observe it as a
natural fact. So is there any sense in judging distant cultures and
times morally by that standard? We can do but I think it is a point at
which we cease to be historians and put on another hat - moral
educators, perhaps, concerned with drawing lessons for our own time? We
can, however, objectively judge as historians how actions measured up to
the moral standards and beliefs of the time.

ISTM that judging those in more modern times who "knew better" (i.e did
have "our" moral standard to refer to) is rather different. But even
here I don't think we are strictly being historians when we make those
judgements. Although the two get hopelessly entangled, what happened and
how we feel about what happened are still conceptually different. Two
people can agree on a great many "facts" about, say, C19th colonialism
even if they make very different moral judgements and are too far apart
in perspective or analysis to agree all the "facts". The areas of
agreement tend to be so taken for granted that we hardly notice them.
The biggest danger is that we notice historical inventions, edits and
distortions that conflict with our own moral/political viewpoint much
more readily than those that suit us.

hippo

unread,

Feb 5, 2002, 1:05:49 PM2/5/02

to

"Rabid Bee" wrote in message

Sorry, I hurried over that part. The best explanation of the term, and where
I was introduced to it, is under 'Roman Law' in the 1911 Britannica. It was
in reference to Roman law which permitted a citizen to kill a slave or a
pater familias to kill his children should they transgress. Anyway it isn't
the point I was making. -the Troll

Tes Anderson

unread,

Feb 6, 2002, 1:04:42 AM2/6/02

to

"hippo" <hi...@southsudan.net> wrote in message news:<_%I78.32016$gd.71...@news2.nash1.tn.home.com>...

> "discussion" wrote in message
>
> > "hippo" wrote in message
>
> > <snipped>
>
> > > Cecil Rhodes was a man of his time. Measured by a modern standard he
> might
> > > be considered an exploiter. Judged by the time he lived, he is a great
> man.
> > > We can not live to a set of standards not yet conceived. We may only
> live
> up
> > > to those we know. -the Troll
>
>

> To use the example of Cecil Rhodes, in Victorian times

> 'civilizing' the native peoples of the Empire was considered exemplary by
> society, the Church and State. It is totally wrong to judge him by our
> modern standards just as it would to criticize adolescent homosexuality in
> 5th century Athens or the authority of the pater familias in 3rd century
> Rome. The argument of the natural law people is that eventually we will all
> be free enough of superstition, social dictates and archaic laws to bring
> ourselves to a state of enlightenment. I believe we are witnesses to that
> metamorphosis today. The fact that we can not even now agree what the
> eventual outcome will be is another point in my argument. -the Troll

Just to go back to Cecil Rhodes for a moment...I would argue that to
many of that time he was considered a great man (People investing in
the British South Africa Company, and perhaps those strongly behind
the church)however, you must also look at the people who thought he
was a bad man. Those who had their property taxed and as a result
stolen, and those that were forced to work in mines in order to make
enough money to pay the BSAC so that they were able to get their
cattle back. Words like "civilize" and phrases like "changing their
backwardness" was to help Rhodes and his "men" sleep at night. The
europeans were in Africa for selfish, not selfless reasons...
Tes

hippo

unread,

Feb 6, 2002, 1:56:43 PM2/6/02

to

"Tes Anderson" wrote in message

> "hippo" wrote in message

> > > <snipped>

I agree. He was also pushed the flag ahead and strengthened and expanded the
Empire, stopped the incessant inter-tribal wars, much as the East India
Company had done in what is now India, and brought relative stability to the
region. Thousands of 'great' Englishman up to then had done the same for the
same reasons from Clive to Cook. You must put yourself back in time to a
tavern keeper on the Portsmouth-London road reading the paper before you can
judge him. It was that English tavern keeper Rhodes was working to impress,
not your good self. If you can not understand that and make the mental leap
then your criticism of him is not valid history, only modern social
criticism which is not the same thing at all. -the Troll