Author Topic: The State of Englishness  (Read 28782 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The State of Englishness
« Reply #30 on: May 28, 2008, 03:56:38 PM »

Quote
The American Revolution was about protecting the culture and sovereignty of the colonies? Huh. Interesting perspective. So does this mean you think Lincoln was wrong to make war to prevent the southern states from seceding?

Yes. You don't believe a people has a right to self-determination? That government derives it's just powers from consent of the governed? And that they're free to withdraw that consent at their choosing? Interesting perspective from a libertarian.


Wow. You assume very quickly. Slow down there, bub. Do I believe a people have a right to self-determination? Sure. Do I believe the government derives it's just powers from consent of the governed? Of course. Do I believe the governed are free to withdraw that consent at their choosing? Yes, I do. I've not said anything to indicate otherwise.

Anyway, I find interesting that you think the Confederacy had a right to protect their culture. Not many people will say the culture of the South was worth defending. But what would be really interesting is finding out why you think the northern states, as led by Lincoln, were not attempting to defend what they perceived as the culture of the Union.



Quote
More importantly, are you in fact advocating the end of the United Kingdom via the separation of Scotland, England, Wales, Yorkshire, Cornwall and whoever else prefers the nationalistic notion of protecting their "indigenous" sovereignty and culture from the influence of others? Between the article you posted and your comment about the American Revolution, you seem to be suggesting something like that might be a good idea. If so, how would any of that protect "Englishness"? And how would it address the problem of immigration?

Again, I advocate they do whatever suits them, for whatever reason it suits them. See above.


Okay, but that doesn't answer the other questions. How would that protect "Englishness"? And how would it address the problem of immigration?


I doubt anyone but a geneticist could sort out the Saxons from the Normans at this point. However, that's irrelevant.


Well, I'd say so, but then, I'm not the one who posted an article talking about "indigenous" English culture.


What is relevant is that however they came by their identity, the current inhabitants of the country known as England identify themselves as "English". This identity is a composite that includes customs, mannerisms, culture, language, traditions and ethnic characteristics.

I certainly have no trouble identifying an Englishman when I've met one. Do you?


Not usually, but that generally stems more from the accent than anything else. Anyway, what you seem to be ignoring is that all those customs and language and traditions are not some pure culture that has arisen in a wholly indigenous people. Like the rest of us, the U.K. has a mix of customs and language and traditions that come from many different peoples. While I am all for devolving power to local people, the notion that some how an indigenous "Englishness" is going to be served by trying to separate people into small cultural groups is laughable at best.
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The State of Englishness
« Reply #31 on: May 28, 2008, 04:00:07 PM »

That is an interesting question , his leagal rights under the Constitution were shakey , but he felt at liberty to impose Northern Culture on the South bvecause doing otherwise might destroy the Constitution anyway.


Destroy the Constitution? In what way would allowing the southern states to secede have destroyed the Constitution?


If you watch "Bravehart" three times in a row you will be thirsting for revenge against those dastardly English , was it a propaganda peice for the idea of Scottish independance?


That's cute, but it doesn't answer my questions.
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: The State of Englishness
« Reply #32 on: May 28, 2008, 04:02:05 PM »
Quote
Not many people will say the culture of the South was worth defending.

Depends on the definition of Southern Culture.


Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The State of Englishness
« Reply #33 on: May 28, 2008, 04:08:52 PM »

Depends on the definition of Southern Culture.


True enough. At the time, however, slavery was a big part of the culture of the South. And so, as I said, not many people will say the culture of the South was worth defending.
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The State of Englishness
« Reply #34 on: May 28, 2008, 04:09:40 PM »

There was a very distinct culture , more than one really that arose ammong the jews in exile , Yiddish language is a product of Jewishness in a German environment .

One of the arguements for the existance of Isreal is that it is hard to defend a culture with out haveing a homeland for it.


Okay. So, back to my question, this culture was indigenous exactly where in Europe?
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The State of Englishness
« Reply #35 on: May 28, 2008, 04:10:45 PM »

There was a very distinct culture , more than one really that arose ammong the jews in exile , Yiddish language is a product of Jewishness in a German environment .

One of the arguements for the existance of Isreal is that it is hard to defend a culture with out haveing a homeland for it.


Okay. So, back to my question, this culture was indigenous exactly where in Europe?

Yiddish? Germany and Poland.

Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The State of Englishness
« Reply #36 on: May 28, 2008, 06:09:01 PM »

Yiddish? Germany and Poland.


I could be wrong, but to the best of my knowledge Yiddish is primarily a language rather than a culture. So I'm not convinced that answers my question.
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The State of Englishness
« Reply #37 on: May 28, 2008, 06:14:50 PM »
I could be wrong, but to the best of my knowledge Yiddish is primarily a language rather than a culture. So I'm not convinced that answers my question.

===============
Yiddish is a language derived from German, with a large number of words from Hebrew, Polish and Russian, that was spoken in Germany, Poland, Lithuania and parts of Russia, such as stetls in the Ukraine. It is basically 14th Century German with modifications in phonetics and inflection and a large number of words added from Hebrew and Slavic languages.


There is a culture, perhaps several cultures, related to it. Not all Eastern Ashkinazim Jews spoke Yiddish, nor was the culture identical over the entire area.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2008, 06:18:22 PM by Xavier_Onassis »
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The State of Englishness
« Reply #38 on: May 28, 2008, 07:50:14 PM »
Quote
Nonsense.  Racism exists in all parts of the world, and black racism is MORE pervasive now than white in the US.  The reason for this is that it is now acceptable to be a Black Racist, as it once was acceptable to be a White Racist.  (It's just not acceptable to LABEL it racism.)  The very appropriate (and long overdue) backlash against White Racism that took place in the fifties and sixties led to a lot of laws, court decisions and the like that changed the legal landscape.  But the more lasting effect of that backlash was to change the mind of the majority of Americans.  Of course there are white racists in America, and the first amendment even allows the most brain-dead of them to spout off their nonsense in public.  But unlike fifty years ago MOST Americans do not agree - not even tacitly - with what they say.  They are no longer leaders, they are the lunatic fringe.  Far more Americans still have racial prejudice, but they sublimate it into personal prejudice.  They know better than to endorse discrimination.  Most of them don't even WANT to discriminate.  They accept the idea that races are equal, they just can't overcome their natural prejudices.  This is not an American condition, it is a human condition, as you have pointed out.

Utter nonsense. As I've indicated, Primary racism is a condition of domination through exploitation + prejudice. You're simply stuck on petty secondary racism, which is nothing more than a byproduct. Of course it is offensive, but it isn't the foundation upon which the house is built. This country was built on the notion that blacks were subhuman - less than whites. You may not like that, but that is the truth. There is 400 years of history, of conditioning whites to believe in their superiority and the inverse - to condition blacks to their inferiority. Despite all the well-wishing and togetherness that one would love to bestow upon the current state of affairs, the truth is that five years does not change 400 years of conditioning, teaching, and living.   

Quote
African-Americans, however, consider themselves justified in their brand of racial hatred.  It isn't racism, they say, because you have to have POWER to be a racist.  That's just a self-serving redefinition of the word.  Black people use racial slurs and stereotypes in describing white people with impunity.  Oprah Winfrey can build a school, recruit all black children to attend and then when questioned about it say "I don't have to explain myself to white people."  (Yeah, I know, that's not the exact quote but it is an accurate representation.)  Imagine if Rush Limbaugh did that with the appropriate racial adjustments.  Oprah Winfrey is a racist.  She is even a racist by the PC definition, because there are few people in America with her clout.  There's a real good chance that had she endorsed Hillary, this wouldn't even be a race.  But why endorse a white person - even a woman - when there is "one of us" running.  But nobody will call her a racist, because Blacks can't be racist.

No offense Pooch, but this sounds like whining to me. Oprah's school is in South Africa. Do you know the history of South Africa? Do you know who supported that country's regime?

Quote
African-Americans continue to use the tired old "racism" excuse for all of their social ills, personal failures and bad decisions.  And yes, I am broad-brushing, but there IS a cultural mindset among African-Americans that says the White Man is their real problem.  Even Barak Obama, who is very likely to reach the highest office in the land, still whines about the White man.  The justification for hatred of White people is that Whites have always been - and are still - holding blacks down.  Horsecrap.  White people held black people down for a long time, but that time is past.  While some residual barriers still remain from the slavery and Jim Crow years, most Black people today are held down by Black people - very often themselves.  One of the biggest barriers to many black people is their own prejudice.  They use it as an excuse to fail - and then blame that failure on others.  That, too, is a human condition - it's called rationalization.

So Detroit and Memphis are predominantly black and exceptionally poor because individual blacks have "personal failures and make bad decisions?" You are somewhat correct, but you stray off the path. Blacks are held down because the people American society demonstrates to be successful are white. White = normal. White = human. Blacks still live in a society dominated by white economic exploitation. More than that, it is a society dominated by white psychology. That is not innate to humanity, that is learned. That is 400 years of dehumanization. The white heterosexual Protestant male is held in the highest regards. Onto people who do not fit into that select group are projected all of the deviancies of the white male. In your terminology I would say, "it's called projection."

So we have a group that gets saddled with terms like: lazy, sexually deviant, stupid, manual laborers, thieves, dirty, unwashed, ugly, unclean, etc. These are not terms that reflect on any genetic reality, but are projections of the Id from the dominant group (in this case white males). The great fear of Southern whites were black slaves storming the plantation house and raping the delicate and virtuous white women. Of course, in reality many slave owners slept with and even forcibly raped their female slaves. As I said, it is called projection.

This projection is taught, not innate. It has been taught for centuries. The Roma and Jews in Europe, the blacks in America and South Africa, the Aborigines in Australia have all been on the receiving end. And it is taught to the groups being dehumanized as well. The Roma, Jews, Aborigines, Blacks, and Native Americans are taught that they are "wrong" that "right" is a European white male. And it is there where you come close Pooch, but you start blaming the individual blacks, when they are only living up to what white society has taught them to be.

Many people in here, both left and right love using the phrase color-blind. If they don't use it they use the meaning. They pretend to believe that it was the goal of the Civil Rights Movement and the Civil War.

Yet, a color-blind society is typically nothing but a well-intentioned, but incorrect wish for a society that is all white. It is a society where the Roma, Jews, Blacks, Muslims, Homosexuals, and women are never free to be themselves. They are simply mimics of white male society and projections of white male deviancies. Differences are not celebrated, but are truly "viewed" as if we were all blind.
I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The State of Englishness
« Reply #39 on: May 28, 2008, 07:54:11 PM »



 Primary racism is a condition of domination through exploitation + prejudice. You're simply stuck on petty secondary racism, which is nothing more than a byproduct.

Racism in power is a diffrent animal than racism out of power?

What is diffrent other than the power?


Suppose we were to elect a black person who suffered from racism , would his previously harmless racism become evil as soon as he were sworn in?

_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The State of Englishness
« Reply #40 on: May 28, 2008, 07:58:10 PM »



 Primary racism is a condition of domination through exploitation + prejudice. You're simply stuck on petty secondary racism, which is nothing more than a byproduct.

Racism in power is a diffrent animal than racism out of power?

What is diffrent other than the power?


Suppose we were to elect a black person who suffered from racism , would his previously harmless racism become evil as soon as he were sworn in?

I never mentioned power.

Domination and exploitation, are what I mentioned. It takes more than one elected president to implement these.
I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The State of Englishness
« Reply #41 on: May 28, 2008, 08:00:14 PM »



 Primary racism is a condition of domination through exploitation + prejudice. You're simply stuck on petty secondary racism, which is nothing more than a byproduct.

Racism in power is a diffrent animal than racism out of power?

What is diffrent other than the power?


Suppose we were to elect a black person who suffered from racism , would his previously harmless racism become evil as soon as he were sworn in?

I never mentioned power.

Domination and exploitation, are what I mentioned. It takes more than one elected president to implement these.

Champion hairsplitting!

True I used the word "power " and you didn't.
Perhaps domination and exploitation can flow from racism without power but I did not realise it.

_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The State of Englishness
« Reply #42 on: May 28, 2008, 11:32:03 PM »
Regardless, it takes more than a single elected president Plane. It took 400 years of learned behavior to create the racist system we currently have. It would take a hell of a lot longer to create a black racist system where black = normal and white = subhuman in America.

I think that's a bit beside the point though.
I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: The State of Englishness
« Reply #43 on: May 28, 2008, 11:38:47 PM »
Quote
Regardless, it takes more than a single elected president Plane. It took 400 years of learned behavior to create the racist system we currently have. It would take a hell of a lot longer to create a black racist system where black = normal and white = subhuman in America.

If Atlanta is any indication it takes about 30 years. It seems it really isn't about black or white, it's about green.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The State of Englishness
« Reply #44 on: May 28, 2008, 11:43:38 PM »
Regardless, it takes more than a single elected president Plane. It took 400 years of learned behavior to create the racist system we currently have. It would take a hell of a lot longer to create a black racist system where black = normal and white = subhuman in America.

I think that's a bit beside the point though.

No, I don't see why time would be a factor.

It didn't take 400 years to reach its worst expression in Jamaca , it was practicly instant there.


Nor are there any 400 year old people running around carrying on an attitude.

If I am wrong then the racism of the out of power isn't new anyway , as Obama's pastor has demonstrated , there is plenty of prejudice ready to use on day one.

So what is directly to the point?  That an abismally racist attitude in a person who isn't white is totally excused?