Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Most involved with contemporary English culture are liberal minded- why do "nationalists" dislike them?
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Andy Wainwright
Apr 23, 2013, 6:31:00 PM4/23/13
to
Most involved with contemporary English culture are liberal minded- why
do "nationalists" dislike them?
Something I've found is most folk involved in the arts here in England
tend to be fairly liberally minded. From poets, painters and composers
to morris dancers and trainspotters, such people are often quite
diverse, eccentric and generally quirky.
Some of those who talk about the evils of "multiculturalism" seem to, on
scratching a little deeper, be against culture period. Cultural
advancement comes from the melting pot, particularly in England,
traditionally a more indivualistic society than much of continental Europe.
Particulalrly weird seems to be a preference for holywood style media
over the homegrown, such as say, Sky over BBC. Sure enough, there's been
some great "tin pan alley" classics, but in modern times English culture
has been a major source of both income and identity, by being something
a little different from the advertising and demographic-lead major
stateside concerns.
Many "nationalists" seem to get awfully worked up about immigration, but
generally the migrants, barring a small criminal element, either fit in
with the natives or keep themselves to themselves. Foreign concerns like
News Corporation by contrast wish to change this country to suit their
own political and commercial agenda.
I love America, have some great friends there, particularly like their
cop shows, westerns, Motown and Bob Dylan. But England is a very
different country, what suits the US doesn't always work here- and
that's the problem.
Homegrown English media producers are allowed to be subjected to a
market that is nowhere near competitive. A great example is how a hit US
show/film that's already paid for itself in the domestic market can be
exported and sold at a loss overseas. Local media can't compete, and
once the market has been saturated, the media giant hikes it's prices.
In music there's been some disturbing developments in the form of major
record labels being more interested in sales to the larger US market and
is thus interested in creating "America-friendly" English acts, as
opposed to selling that market music as local musicians intended it,
thus depriving it of it's unique identity. So effectively we get
Monkees-esque acts as opposed to Beatles-esque ones. Of course,
Rock&Roll is American in origins, but the modern US music biz isn't very
rock and roll, more demographics and the conformity that allows big
sales of such stereotypes.
Politically, both the right and left seem hell bent on trying to force
those involved in culture, sport and so forth at amateur level, where
the professional talent can rise from with time, into positions that
might not use the persons' talent but are full time paid jobs. Again,
the "nationalists" seem to go along with that, in fact politicians
elected on such a ticket often see arts projects as an area ripe for the
axe.
The BBC could certainly help out more, Radio 1 in music is a wasted
opportunity, not just for British acts but alternative business models-
such as true independent labels and the excellent creative commons
scene. In fact they're reluctant to do so in fear of offending the major
labels and losing content rights for popular acts, including "behind the
scenes" and so forth. Is it right that we have a high-budget taxpayer
funded advertisement for what is essentially a cartel? Some people will
complain about musicians who fund their careers through dole cheques,
but don't seem to have a problem with the very rich people receiving
such a subsidy.
Still the BBC is better than commercial alternatives, which promise
music but show less original content than the five old terrestrial
channels did, and gradually replace the music with teen soaps and
teleshopping.
One problem with this demographic-led model is it stokes racial tension,
by dividing people on such lines. You can see why, different skintones
often need different cosmetics and so forth, but it's pretty pathetic.
Homegrown English media by contrast tends to focus on characters, first
and foremost as individuals- a person as opposed to a black, white or
Asian person.
And maybe this is telling, that these "nationalists" are people who see
themselves as a demographic as opposed to a character in their own right.
In fact, the English in the last few decades have actually integrated
more as opposed to less, yet the media seems to tell a different story.
It's not vastly different is the States either. It's quite common in the
crap tabloids to demoan a "liberal elite" that's "out of touch", but
essentially they're projecting- it's the tabloid hacks who live in the
ivory towers, they've got the money to be able to surround themselves
with people of their choosing. By contrast those who don't have that
option instead confront their prejudices and overcome them.
This brings me back to one of the big differences between the UK and
some other countries- because we're small and cramped, necessity
requires us to be more tollerant and polite.
do "nationalists" dislike them?
Something I've found is most folk involved in the arts here in England
tend to be fairly liberally minded. From poets, painters and composers
to morris dancers and trainspotters, such people are often quite
diverse, eccentric and generally quirky.
Some of those who talk about the evils of "multiculturalism" seem to, on
scratching a little deeper, be against culture period. Cultural
advancement comes from the melting pot, particularly in England,
traditionally a more indivualistic society than much of continental Europe.
Particulalrly weird seems to be a preference for holywood style media
over the homegrown, such as say, Sky over BBC. Sure enough, there's been
some great "tin pan alley" classics, but in modern times English culture
has been a major source of both income and identity, by being something
a little different from the advertising and demographic-lead major
stateside concerns.
Many "nationalists" seem to get awfully worked up about immigration, but
generally the migrants, barring a small criminal element, either fit in
with the natives or keep themselves to themselves. Foreign concerns like
News Corporation by contrast wish to change this country to suit their
own political and commercial agenda.
I love America, have some great friends there, particularly like their
cop shows, westerns, Motown and Bob Dylan. But England is a very
different country, what suits the US doesn't always work here- and
that's the problem.
Homegrown English media producers are allowed to be subjected to a
market that is nowhere near competitive. A great example is how a hit US
show/film that's already paid for itself in the domestic market can be
exported and sold at a loss overseas. Local media can't compete, and
once the market has been saturated, the media giant hikes it's prices.
In music there's been some disturbing developments in the form of major
record labels being more interested in sales to the larger US market and
is thus interested in creating "America-friendly" English acts, as
opposed to selling that market music as local musicians intended it,
thus depriving it of it's unique identity. So effectively we get
Monkees-esque acts as opposed to Beatles-esque ones. Of course,
Rock&Roll is American in origins, but the modern US music biz isn't very
rock and roll, more demographics and the conformity that allows big
sales of such stereotypes.
Politically, both the right and left seem hell bent on trying to force
those involved in culture, sport and so forth at amateur level, where
the professional talent can rise from with time, into positions that
might not use the persons' talent but are full time paid jobs. Again,
the "nationalists" seem to go along with that, in fact politicians
elected on such a ticket often see arts projects as an area ripe for the
axe.
The BBC could certainly help out more, Radio 1 in music is a wasted
opportunity, not just for British acts but alternative business models-
such as true independent labels and the excellent creative commons
scene. In fact they're reluctant to do so in fear of offending the major
labels and losing content rights for popular acts, including "behind the
scenes" and so forth. Is it right that we have a high-budget taxpayer
funded advertisement for what is essentially a cartel? Some people will
complain about musicians who fund their careers through dole cheques,
but don't seem to have a problem with the very rich people receiving
such a subsidy.
Still the BBC is better than commercial alternatives, which promise
music but show less original content than the five old terrestrial
channels did, and gradually replace the music with teen soaps and
teleshopping.
One problem with this demographic-led model is it stokes racial tension,
by dividing people on such lines. You can see why, different skintones
often need different cosmetics and so forth, but it's pretty pathetic.
Homegrown English media by contrast tends to focus on characters, first
and foremost as individuals- a person as opposed to a black, white or
Asian person.
And maybe this is telling, that these "nationalists" are people who see
themselves as a demographic as opposed to a character in their own right.
In fact, the English in the last few decades have actually integrated
more as opposed to less, yet the media seems to tell a different story.
It's not vastly different is the States either. It's quite common in the
crap tabloids to demoan a "liberal elite" that's "out of touch", but
essentially they're projecting- it's the tabloid hacks who live in the
ivory towers, they've got the money to be able to surround themselves
with people of their choosing. By contrast those who don't have that
option instead confront their prejudices and overcome them.
This brings me back to one of the big differences between the UK and
some other countries- because we're small and cramped, necessity
requires us to be more tollerant and polite.
abelard
Apr 23, 2013, 8:18:16 PM4/23/13
to
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 23:31:00 +0100, Andy Wainwright
<andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>Most involved with contemporary English culture are liberal minded- why
>do "nationalists" dislike them?
do you suppose teams(sheep) are more able to produce 'original'
<andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>Most involved with contemporary English culture are liberal minded- why
>do "nationalists" dislike them?
work...or do you think farmers(say loners/individualists) are
better at that?
>Something I've found is most folk involved in the arts here in England
>tend to be fairly liberally minded. From poets, painters and composers
>to morris dancers and trainspotters, such people are often quite
>diverse, eccentric and generally quirky.
to get seriously good at anything takes around 10 years
of focused hard work...
that is much more than most people are prepared to invest...
http://www.wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html
Bill
Apr 23, 2013, 8:35:32 PM4/23/13
to
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 02:18:16 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
wrote:
>to get seriously good at anything takes around 10 years
> of focused hard work...
>that is much more than most people are prepared to invest...
>
>http://www.wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html
And what skills have you invested that sort of time in to acquire?
I have to add that after ten years most mathematicians and scientists
are considered 'burnt out' and take jobs in management.
wrote:
>to get seriously good at anything takes around 10 years
> of focused hard work...
>that is much more than most people are prepared to invest...
>
>http://www.wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html
I have to add that after ten years most mathematicians and scientists
are considered 'burnt out' and take jobs in management.
abelard
Apr 23, 2013, 9:08:28 PM4/23/13
to
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 01:35:32 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 02:18:16 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>wrote:
>>to get seriously good at anything takes around 10 years
>> of focused hard work...
>>that is much more than most people are prepared to invest...
>>
>>http://www.wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html
>
>And what skills have you invested that sort of time in to acquire?
you can find out at my site...i don't think you'll be capable
of following or understanding it...
>I have to add that after ten years most mathematicians and scientists
>are considered 'burnt out' and take jobs in management.
give examples...
'mathematicians' and 'scientists' are *very* wide categories...
several creative logicians have effectively gone mad...
cantor, godel..russell made comments that suggested
he'd burnt out on logic...
imv that is due to them not being grounded in reality...
there are three areas where 'prodigies' tend to appear...
maths, chess, music...
in each case, 'real world experience' is not necessary...
they tend to be closed worlds with limiting rule sets...
playgrounds for the mind...
in each area, there are several high profile people who
are not obviously sane...
there are other 'scientists' who have been productive into old age
wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 02:18:16 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>wrote:
>>to get seriously good at anything takes around 10 years
>> of focused hard work...
>>that is much more than most people are prepared to invest...
>>
>>http://www.wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html
>
>And what skills have you invested that sort of time in to acquire?
of following or understanding it...
>I have to add that after ten years most mathematicians and scientists
>are considered 'burnt out' and take jobs in management.
'mathematicians' and 'scientists' are *very* wide categories...
several creative logicians have effectively gone mad...
cantor, godel..russell made comments that suggested
he'd burnt out on logic...
imv that is due to them not being grounded in reality...
there are three areas where 'prodigies' tend to appear...
maths, chess, music...
in each case, 'real world experience' is not necessary...
they tend to be closed worlds with limiting rule sets...
playgrounds for the mind...
in each area, there are several high profile people who
are not obviously sane...
there are other 'scientists' who have been productive into old age
DVH
Apr 24, 2013, 1:45:32 AM4/24/13
to
abelard
Apr 24, 2013, 4:51:39 AM4/24/13
to
you think it to be 'lunacy'
imv it is also very clever, and thus interesting
Bill
Apr 24, 2013, 5:32:08 AM4/24/13
to
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 03:08:28 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>>I have to add that after ten years most mathematicians and scientists
>>are considered 'burnt out' and take jobs in management.
>
>give examples...
>'mathematicians' and 'scientists' are *very* wide categories...
As you say so often 'Do your own research'.
wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 01:35:32 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 02:18:16 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>>wrote:
>
>>>to get seriously good at anything takes around 10 years
>>> of focused hard work...
>>>that is much more than most people are prepared to invest...
>>>
>>>http://www.wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html
>>
>>And what skills have you invested that sort of time in to acquire?
>
>you can find out at my site...i don't think you'll be capable
> of following or understanding it...
So it's yak herding and boring people...
>On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 01:35:32 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 02:18:16 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>>wrote:
>
>>>to get seriously good at anything takes around 10 years
>>> of focused hard work...
>>>that is much more than most people are prepared to invest...
>>>
>>>http://www.wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html
>>
>>And what skills have you invested that sort of time in to acquire?
>
>you can find out at my site...i don't think you'll be capable
> of following or understanding it...
>>I have to add that after ten years most mathematicians and scientists
>>are considered 'burnt out' and take jobs in management.
>
>give examples...
>'mathematicians' and 'scientists' are *very* wide categories...
Bill
Apr 24, 2013, 5:34:56 AM4/24/13
to
countries to run like extended families.
The article is actually about how, using his theory, the liberal(i.e.
US) left can understand the appeal of the conservative right and so
defeat it.
Loads of people say he's bonkers...
DVH
Apr 28, 2013, 9:05:21 AM4/28/13
to
I've known and studied Lakoff since I learned of him from McGilchrist. I
produced that very article on here a couple of years ago, and abe
dismissed it as lunacy.
It amused me to see him peddling it.
Lakoff's ideas about metaphor are very interesting to me.
abelard
Apr 28, 2013, 9:59:52 AM4/28/13
to
DVH
Apr 28, 2013, 10:18:54 AM4/28/13
to
abelard
Apr 28, 2013, 11:11:31 AM4/28/13
to
0 new messages