It was recently suggested that because I mentioned the Group, I must be a whacked-out conspiracy nut. The following is offered in order to counter that suggestion. Please browse the review.
Ferd Burfle wrote: > It was recently suggested that because I mentioned the Group, I must be > a whacked-out conspiracy nut. The following is offered in order to > counter that suggestion. Please browse the review.
Nigel Stapley wrote: > Ferd Burfle wrote: >> It was recently suggested that because I mentioned the Group, I must >> be a whacked-out conspiracy nut. The following is offered in order to >> counter that suggestion. Please browse the review.
>> Ferd Burfle wrote: >>> It was recently suggested that because I mentioned the Group, I must >>> be a whacked-out conspiracy nut. The following is offered in order to >>> counter that suggestion. Please browse the review.
>> Oh come on! It must be true because someone wrote a book about it? Dan >> Brown, anyone?
> Did you read the review?
> Those names are not made up. Can you imagine that they are up to > anything good?
> Did you study at a University to learn how to bleat so charmingly?
> Baa baa baa
> Do you have anything worthwhile to offer?
> It requires neither character nor wisdom to scoff.
I espouse neither your nor Nigel's view, Rocky, (and we've always spoken respectfully to each other) but that was a bit below the belt. This is *afp* - let's not stoop to insults.
>>> Ferd Burfle wrote: >>>> It was recently suggested that because I mentioned the Group, I must >>>> be a whacked-out conspiracy nut. The following is offered in order to >>>> counter that suggestion. Please browse the review.
>>> Oh come on! It must be true because someone wrote a book about it? Dan >>> Brown, anyone? >> Did you read the review?
>> Those names are not made up. Can you imagine that they are up to >> anything good?
>> Did you study at a University to learn how to bleat so charmingly?
>> Baa baa baa
>> Do you have anything worthwhile to offer?
>> It requires neither character nor wisdom to scoff.
> I espouse neither your nor Nigel's view, Rocky, (and we've always spoken > respectfully to each other) but that was a bit below the belt. This is > *afp* - let's not stoop to insults.
Disrespect, insults, are in the ear of the listener.
I would have sworn I said nothing but simple truth.
-Sparkle Farkle's boyfriend -- Trust the Government.
>>>> Ferd Burfle wrote: >>>>> It was recently suggested that because I mentioned the Group, I must >>>>> be a whacked-out conspiracy nut. The following is offered in order to >>>>> counter that suggestion. Please browse the review.
>>>> Oh come on! It must be true because someone wrote a book about it? Dan >>>> Brown, anyone? >>> Did you read the review?
>>> Those names are not made up. Can you imagine that they are up to >>> anything good?
>>> Did you study at a University to learn how to bleat so charmingly?
>>> Baa baa baa
>>> Do you have anything worthwhile to offer?
>>> It requires neither character nor wisdom to scoff.
>> I espouse neither your nor Nigel's view, Rocky, (and we've always spoken >> respectfully to each other) but that was a bit below the belt. This is >> *afp* - let's not stoop to insults.
I think this requires a second reply.
Nigel's message implied that I am a fool or badly misinformed. What has Dan Brown to do with the subject? Does the fact that Brown writes best-selling bilge somehow indict all books? Did I say that the Bilderberg group must be real as described because a book was written on the subject. This was Nigel's implication. Do you think Nigel's scathing disrespect of my opinion and of me as a person was warranted?
I do not. I just resent the living fuck out of it.
Thanks for taking his side.
Fuck the both of you.
-Sparkle Farkle's boyfriend -- Trust the Government.
>> Ferd Burfle wrote: >>> It was recently suggested that because I mentioned the Group, I must >>> be a whacked-out conspiracy nut. The following is offered in order to >>> counter that suggestion. Please browse the review.
>> Oh come on! It must be true because someone wrote a book about it? Dan >> Brown, anyone?
> Did you read the review?
Yes. Publishers'/authors' reviews are scarcely worth the html code. As for the 'editorial reviews' - I mean, 'worldnetdaily.com'? And then the 'customer reviews': one who believes that Thatcher <fx:spit> was dethroned because the bankers wanted Yookania to sign up to the Euro and she was against it? (Hint: nearly twenty years on from The Great Defenestration, it still hasn't and what have the Wildebeesters done in the meantime if they were/are so desperate for it to happen?). Someone else referring us to John 14:30? Hardly balanced are they, even by their own lights?
> Those names are not made up. Can you imagine that they are up to > anything good?
Of course not (from the point of view of those at the bottom of the ladder, at least); they're politicians and bankers, aren't they? You yourself have called them 'psychopaths' at every possible opportunuty. To extrapolate from that, however, that they're all involved in some immense octopodic plot against 'freedom' (as you would define it) is to turn poor old Mr Credulity into The India Rubber Man.
'Conspiracy theories' cannot usually justify the description; they are not theories, they are merely *hypotheses*, for which the evidence which might turn them into theories is either scant, skewed or totally absent.
> Did you study at a University to learn how to bleat so charmingly?
> Baa baa baa
I'm Welsh and it was a Welsh university. We tend (rightly or wrongly) to be a bit sensitive on the subject of sheep (cf. trolls and billy goats), so that comment was beneath you, sir.
> Do you have anything worthwhile to offer?
I hope so. Rather more than seeing conspiracies where none may exist simply in order to bolster or boost an ideological position. Finagle's Second Law applies:
"No matter what result is anticipated, there will always be someone eager to
1. misinterpret it, 2. fake it, or 3. believe it happened according to his own pet theory."
> It requires neither character nor wisdom to scoff.
>> Ferd Burfle wrote: >>> It was recently suggested that because I mentioned the Group, I must >>> be a whacked-out conspiracy nut. The following is offered in order >>> to counter that suggestion. Please browse the review.
>> Oh come on! It must be true because someone wrote a book about it? >> Dan Brown, anyone?
> Did you read the review?
I did, and frankly I wasn't impressed. Coming next "How Hells Angels are going to take over the world because they have a yearly rally" or maybe "Michael Eavis is going to take over the world because he has a huge rock festival each year on his farm to brainwash the younger generation"
> Those names are not made up. Can you imagine that they are up to > anything good?
Being as they are politicians and bankers I doubt it. OTOH a bunch of egos that size getting together and agreeing on *anything* seems unlikely.
<snip>
I can write a conspiracy theory book and drop names all through it - does that prove that it happens? Leave it to the paranoids to believe this stuff.
Go read Private Eye if you really want to find out what's going on.
gary
-- "I really like this jacket but the sleeves are much too long"
> I'm Welsh and it was a Welsh university. We tend (rightly or wrongly) to > be a bit sensitive on the subject of sheep (cf. trolls and billy goats), > so that comment was beneath you, sir.
During the War, the various colleges of London University were evacuated to the various colleges of the University of Wales. UCL, my father's alma mater, went to Aberystwyth, my mother's. Food, especially meat, was very short for law-abiding people, which group included my father of course, but somehow his landlady always managed to serve lamb or mutton at every meal. After the War he found himself unable to eat either, and he still can't. The mass evacuation did have one good result: A lot of Welsh people married a lot of Londoners, including my parents, though presumably the Welsh half of each pair had to manage without lamb.
So have I managed to derail this discussion onto something more pleasant?
-- Lesley Weston
The addy above is real, but I won't see anything posted to it for a long time. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca, adjusting as necessary.
>> I'm Welsh and it was a Welsh university. We tend (rightly or wrongly) >> to be a bit sensitive on the subject of sheep (cf. trolls and billy >> goats), so that comment was beneath you, sir.
> During the War, the various colleges of London University were evacuated > to the various colleges of the University of Wales. UCL, my father's > alma mater, went to Aberystwyth, my mother's. Food, especially meat, was > very short for law-abiding people, which group included my father of > course, but somehow his landlady always managed to serve lamb or mutton > at every meal.
>>> I'm Welsh and it was a Welsh university. We tend (rightly or wrongly) >>> to be a bit sensitive on the subject of sheep (cf. trolls and billy >>> goats), so that comment was beneath you, sir.
>> During the War, the various colleges of London University were >> evacuated to the various colleges of the University of Wales. UCL, my >> father's alma mater, went to Aberystwyth, my mother's. Food, >> especially meat, was very short for law-abiding people, which group >> included my father of course, but somehow his landlady always managed >> to serve lamb or mutton at every meal.
Odd that eating lamb doesn't have that effect on other people.
>> The mass evacuation did have one good result: A lot of Welsh people >> married a lot of Londoners, including my parents
> Lucky for you, but it almost certainly worked to the detriment of the > survival of our culture.
I doubt this: it meant that about half (presumably) of the marriages resulted in Welsh people living in London while still remaining Welsh enough to influence the Londoners around them. My mother joined the London Welsh Choir. The other half resulted in Londoners living in Wales and discovering the pleasures of doing so. And stirring up the gene pool is generally a Good Thing.
-- Lesley Weston
The addy above is real, but I won't see anything posted to it for a long time. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca, adjusting as necessary.
>>>> I'm Welsh and it was a Welsh university. We tend (rightly or >>>> wrongly) to be a bit sensitive on the subject of sheep (cf. trolls >>>> and billy goats), so that comment was beneath you, sir.
>>> During the War, the various colleges of London University were >>> evacuated to the various colleges of the University of Wales. UCL, my >>> father's alma mater, went to Aberystwyth, my mother's. Food, >>> especially meat, was very short for law-abiding people, which group >>> included my father of course, but somehow his landlady always managed >>> to serve lamb or mutton at every meal.
> Odd that eating lamb doesn't have that effect on other people.
>>> The mass evacuation did have one good result: A lot of Welsh people >>> married a lot of Londoners, including my parents
>> Lucky for you, but it almost certainly worked to the detriment of the >> survival of our culture.
> I doubt this: it meant that about half (presumably) of the marriages > resulted in Welsh people living in London while still remaining Welsh > enough to influence the Londoners around them. My mother joined the > London Welsh Choir. The other half resulted in Londoners living in Wales > and discovering the pleasures of doing so. And stirring up the gene pool > is generally a Good Thing.
Do not mix up gene pool and culture. I'd say that for "survival of the species" then yes, mixing is good, for survival of a culture, as it is, mixing is generally a bad idea leading to a mixed culture which may have parts of the old culture in it, but it will most certainly not be the old culture...
Winterbay <peter.moh...@gmail.com> wrote: >Lesley Weston skrev: >> And stirring up the gene pool >> is generally a Good Thing.
>Do not mix up gene pool and culture. I'd say that for "survival of the >species" then yes, mixing is good, for survival of a culture, as it is, >mixing is generally a bad idea leading to a mixed culture which may have >parts of the old culture in it, but it will most certainly not be the >old culture...
Not necessarily a bad thing for those of us descended from Aztecs, Mayans, head-hunters, etc...
>>>>> I'm Welsh and it was a Welsh university. We tend (rightly or >>>>> wrongly) to be a bit sensitive on the subject of sheep (cf. trolls >>>>> and billy goats), so that comment was beneath you, sir.
>>>> During the War, the various colleges of London University were >>>> evacuated to the various colleges of the University of Wales. UCL, >>>> my father's alma mater, went to Aberystwyth, my mother's. Food, >>>> especially meat, was very short for law-abiding people, which group >>>> included my father of course, but somehow his landlady always >>>> managed to serve lamb or mutton at every meal.
>> Odd that eating lamb doesn't have that effect on other people.
>>>> The mass evacuation did have one good result: A lot of Welsh people >>>> married a lot of Londoners, including my parents
>>> Lucky for you, but it almost certainly worked to the detriment of the >>> survival of our culture.
>> I doubt this: it meant that about half (presumably) of the marriages >> resulted in Welsh people living in London while still remaining Welsh >> enough to influence the Londoners around them. My mother joined the >> London Welsh Choir. The other half resulted in Londoners living in >> Wales and discovering the pleasures of doing so. And stirring up the >> gene pool is generally a Good Thing.
> Do not mix up gene pool and culture. I'd say that for "survival of the > species" then yes, mixing is good, for survival of a culture, as it is, > mixing is generally a bad idea leading to a mixed culture which may have > parts of the old culture in it, but it will most certainly not be the > old culture...
>>>>> I'm Welsh and it was a Welsh university. We tend (rightly or >>>>> wrongly) to be a bit sensitive on the subject of sheep (cf. trolls >>>>> and billy goats), so that comment was beneath you, sir.
>>>> During the War, the various colleges of London University were >>>> evacuated to the various colleges of the University of Wales. UCL, >>>> my father's alma mater, went to Aberystwyth, my mother's. Food, >>>> especially meat, was very short for law-abiding people, which group >>>> included my father of course, but somehow his landlady always >>>> managed to serve lamb or mutton at every meal.
>> Odd that eating lamb doesn't have that effect on other people.
>>>> The mass evacuation did have one good result: A lot of Welsh people >>>> married a lot of Londoners, including my parents
>>> Lucky for you, but it almost certainly worked to the detriment of the >>> survival of our culture.
>> I doubt this: it meant that about half (presumably) of the marriages >> resulted in Welsh people living in London while still remaining Welsh >> enough to influence the Londoners around them. My mother joined the >> London Welsh Choir. The other half resulted in Londoners living in >> Wales and discovering the pleasures of doing so. And stirring up the >> gene pool is generally a Good Thing.
> Do not mix up gene pool and culture.
No, that was a separate point.
> I'd say that for "survival of the > species" then yes, mixing is good, for survival of a culture, as it is, > mixing is generally a bad idea leading to a mixed culture which may have > parts of the old culture in it, but it will most certainly not be the > old culture...
But living things, including cultures, change. I find the self-conscious preservation by outsiders of the old ways quite embarrassing, when the members of that culture are growing out of them. Anything worth keeping will automatically be kept as that culture changes; whatever dies out is no longer needed or wanted by the people actually experiencing that culture.
-- Lesley Weston
The addy above is real, but I won't see anything posted to it for a long time. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca, adjusting as necessary.
Lesley Weston wrote: > But living things, including cultures, change. I find the self-conscious > preservation by outsiders of the old ways quite embarrassing, when the > members of that culture are growing out of them. Anything worth keeping > will automatically be kept as that culture changes; whatever dies out is > no longer needed or wanted by the people actually experiencing that > culture.
I know we've had this discussion before, and I know I should know better, but you are once again treating cultures as if they were immune to outside pressures. They are not.
Did the surly natives of South America end up speaking Spanish because they thought that it was intrinsically such a good idea? No, it was because Spanish language and culture was imposed upon them at the sharp end of guns, swords and priests.
Did the English language spread as it has done because it and its attendant culture were instrinsically better suited to the 'real world' than the languages and cultures of those upon whom they were visited? No, it was because English happens to be the native language of the two biggest empires (politically, economically and militarily) that humankind has ever known.
What once was done by guns, swords and priests has latterly been done by finance, propaganda and saturation. So the fact that more than half the population spoke the language as late as 1891, whereas now there are only about *seventeen* communities in the whole country where 80%+ of the inhabitants speak it is *not* down simply to the abandonment of 'the old ways' or that what has been lost was simply 'no longer needed or wanted'. It was because the language was deliberately deprived of any official status whatsoever, the politicians and pundits who dominated public discourse kept repeating variants on the mantra, "it's inferior, let it die, be *modern*", and that the population was bombarded from all sides with English-this and English-that so that they actually came to *believe* that the language and culture which had been theirs for hundreds of years was in some fundamental way inferior.
When you place a language or culture into an inferior or submissive rôle, you place those who uphold them in that position as well.
My own Taid (grandfather) was a case in point. A native Welsh-speaker (and this in the old North Wales coalfield, not in the mountain fastnesses), he saw no point in passing the language on to any of his children (this was in the 1920s and 30s) because he - along with nearly all of his class - had been 'persuaded' that it was dying anyway, and was no use to the 'modern' world.
No culture (at least, not in the over-developed world) exists in isolation, nor should it. To claim that there is some sort of purely 'Darwinian' process by which languages and cultures cease to be viable, however, is hokum.
> Winterbay wrote: >> Lesley Weston skrev: >>> Nigel Stapley wrote: >>>> Lesley Weston wrote: <snip> >>>>> The mass evacuation did have one good result: A lot of Welsh >>>>> people married a lot of Londoners, including my parents
>>>> Lucky for you, but it almost certainly worked to the detriment of >>>> the survival of our culture.
>>> I doubt this: it meant that about half (presumably) of the marriages >>> resulted in Welsh people living in London while still remaining >>> Welsh enough to influence the Londoners around them. My mother >>> joined the London Welsh Choir. The other half resulted in Londoners >>> living in Wales and discovering the pleasures of doing so. And >>> stirring up the gene pool is generally a Good Thing. <snip> >> I'd say that for "survival of the >> species" then yes, mixing is good, for survival of a culture, as it >> is, mixing is generally a bad idea leading to a mixed culture which >> may have parts of the old culture in it, but it will most certainly >> not be the old culture...
> But living things, including cultures, change. I find the > self-conscious preservation by outsiders of the old ways quite > embarrassing, when the members of that culture are growing out of > them. Anything worth keeping will automatically be kept as that > culture changes; whatever dies out is no longer needed or wanted by > the people actually experiencing that culture.
Did the Campaign For Stamping Out History sign you up when I wasn't looking?
IME, self-concious preservation of culture is usually done by the members of the culture. It's the outsiders who insist people have to move with the times (ie, do things *their* way).
-- Dave "All those with psychokinesis, raise my hand." The Room With No Doors, Kate Orman
>> But living things, including cultures, change. I find the >> self-conscious preservation by outsiders of the old ways quite >> embarrassing, when the members of that culture are growing out of >> them. Anything worth keeping will automatically be kept as that >> culture changes; whatever dies out is no longer needed or wanted by >> the people actually experiencing that culture.
> I know we've had this discussion before, and I know I should know > better, but you are once again treating cultures as if they were immune > to outside pressures. They are not.
Of course they're not - why should they be? No country is an island... well some are, but you know what I mean.
> Did the surly natives of South America end up speaking Spanish because > they thought that it was intrinsically such a good idea? No, it was > because Spanish language and culture was imposed upon them at the sharp > end of guns, swords and priests.
All of which were a Bad Thing, as I think everyone here would agree. But what's happening to every culture in the world now, not just the Welsh one, and what has always happened whenever two cultures meet, doesn't involve force. It's the wish of the people in one culture for what they perceive as the benefits of the others that brings about the change now, not someone else's rules imposed by force. And who has the right to tell them that they shouldn't want that?
> Did the English language spread as it has done because it and its > attendant culture were instrinsically better suited to the 'real world' > than the languages and cultures of those upon whom they were visited? > No, it was because English happens to be the native language of the two > biggest empires (politically, economically and militarily) that > humankind has ever known.
According to Robert Graves (not the most trustworthy of sources, admittedly), in the time of the Emperor Claudius there was hardly anyone left who spoke Etruscan; all the Etruscans spoke Latin like any other civilised people. Plus ça change...
> What once was done by guns, swords and priests has latterly been done by > finance, propaganda and saturation.
So it does no harm. If you don't have to use force to impose your culture on another, then that other must want yours.
> So the fact that more than half the > population spoke the language as late as 1891, whereas now there are > only about *seventeen* communities in the whole country where 80%+ of > the inhabitants speak it is *not* down simply to the abandonment of 'the > old ways' or that what has been lost was simply 'no longer needed or > wanted'.
There's no law now saying that people can't talk Welsh and teach it to their children if they want to, just as there's no law saying that they must speak English.
> It was because the language was deliberately deprived of any > official status whatsoever, the politicians and pundits who dominated > public discourse kept repeating variants on the mantra, "it's inferior, > let it die, be *modern*", and that the population was bombarded from all > sides with English-this and English-that so that they actually came to > *believe* that the language and culture which had been theirs for > hundreds of years was in some fundamental way inferior.
Not IME; a large part of my grandparents' and my mother's humour involved showing how the Welsh are superior in every way to the English. This did not annoy my father as much as it could have done, since although he was born in England his family were Romanian. But I haven't been there for a while; perhaps the Welsh national perceptions of Welshness have changed in the last thirty-odd years.
> When you place a language or culture into an inferior or submissive > rôle, you place those who uphold them in that position as well.
Only if they agree to it, and all the Welsh people I have ever known (not excluding present company) have seen themselves as being far from inferior and submissive. Which is as it should be of course.
> My own Taid (grandfather) was a case in point. A native Welsh-speaker > (and this in the old North Wales coalfield, not in the mountain > fastnesses), he saw no point in passing the language on to any of his > children (this was in the 1920s and 30s) because he - along with nearly > all of his class - had been 'persuaded' that it was dying anyway, and > was no use to the 'modern' world.
My grandfather, born in the Rhondda around 1880, didn't speak English until he went to school, when he was forced to do so as you say. My grandmother was also completely bilingual, though her family often spoke English at home. My grandparents mostly spoke English at home; however, they tried to teach Welsh to their only child, my mother, but she wasn't having any of it. Not because it wasn't modern but because she wasn't interested.
So I know hardly any Welsh, which I regret. I also regret knowing hardly any Yiddish and French and no Romanian, Russian or German, all of which my other grandparents spoke fluently, because my father wasn't interested in learning those either.
> No culture (at least, not in the over-developed world) exists in > isolation, nor should it.
So I'm not sure what we're arguing about, if we agree on this.
> To claim that there is some sort of purely > 'Darwinian' process by which languages and cultures cease to be viable, > however, is hokum.
Indeed it is. Which is probably why I haven't made this claim.
-- Lesley Weston
The addy above is real, but I won't see anything posted to it for a long time. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca, adjusting as necessary.
Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote: > On 10 Nov 2009, Lesley Weston <brightly_coloured_b...@yahoo.co.uk> > wrote:
>> Winterbay wrote: >>> Lesley Weston skrev: >>>> Nigel Stapley wrote: >>>>> Lesley Weston wrote: > <snip> >>>>>> The mass evacuation did have one good result: A lot of Welsh >>>>>> people married a lot of Londoners, including my parents >>>>> Lucky for you, but it almost certainly worked to the detriment of >>>>> the survival of our culture.
>>>> I doubt this: it meant that about half (presumably) of the marriages >>>> resulted in Welsh people living in London while still remaining >>>> Welsh enough to influence the Londoners around them. My mother >>>> joined the London Welsh Choir. The other half resulted in Londoners >>>> living in Wales and discovering the pleasures of doing so. And >>>> stirring up the gene pool is generally a Good Thing. > <snip> >>> I'd say that for "survival of the >>> species" then yes, mixing is good, for survival of a culture, as it >>> is, mixing is generally a bad idea leading to a mixed culture which >>> may have parts of the old culture in it, but it will most certainly >>> not be the old culture... >> But living things, including cultures, change. I find the >> self-conscious preservation by outsiders of the old ways quite >> embarrassing, when the members of that culture are growing out of >> them. Anything worth keeping will automatically be kept as that >> culture changes; whatever dies out is no longer needed or wanted by >> the people actually experiencing that culture.
> Did the Campaign For Stamping Out History sign you up when I wasn't > looking?
Gods forbid! I don't advocate the loss of the Welsh language and culture (or the Scots one or any other except perhaps the fundamentalist religious ones). I do advocate people in any culture deciding for themselves what they want to do about it, so that those who want to preserve it are free to do so, and those who don't care don't have to worry about it.
Here in Canada, there are some First Nations people who are struggling with limited success to undo the damage done by the Residential Schools programme and other attempts to destroy their cultures. I agree that that was a shameful part of Canada's past, and anything that European Canadians can do to put it right, they should do. Not that that amounts to much. But there are plenty of Aboriginals who just want to live their lives in whatever way suits them, and I don't think anyone, of their own people or any other group, has the right to tell them they shouldn't.
> IME, self-concious preservation of culture is usually done by the members > of the culture. It's the outsiders who insist people have to move with > the times (ie, do things *their* way).
In all the cases I can think of, it's the other way round. I used to sing folk songs in folk clubs, long ago, along with many other urban, middle-class people. There was a movement to take Folk to the folk, but it never really took off, since the folk in question were simply not interested.
I can't blame them; the music is dreadfully dull, especially if you fall among purists who won't allow any kind of accompaniment or even harmony [1]. When there's no alternative, people will listen to it rather than to no music, but when the folk are offered much more exciting and fulfilling music they're naturally going to choose that.
[1] I was singing it because that was the only way you can sing solo before an audience without having an agent, so it's the only way to find one. It didn't work, possibly because I suffer from terminal stage fright and so become completely invisible on stage. Not inaudible, but that's not enough by itself.
-- Lesley Weston
The addy above is real, but I won't see anything posted to it for a long time. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca, adjusting as necessary.
Lesley Weston wrote: > But > what's happening to every culture in the world now, not just the Welsh > one, and what has always happened whenever two cultures meet, doesn't > involve force.
I spent two hours this morning in a meeting where the other participants didn't seem capable of understanding what I was telling them, so I'm a bit reluctant to repeat the experience so soon afterwards (especially as it may confirm that my communication skills aren't what I thought they were), but here goes:
You seem to be assuming that 'force' only refers to coercion which can be applied physically. This is what we doctors call 'twaddle'.
What do you suppose happens when one culture, which had long been a culture primarily of artisans, hedge preachers and (for want of a more nuanced word) 'peasants' suddenly came up against a culture which had control of all of the land, comparatively limitless financial resources and the full panoply of state, legal and ecclesiastical power? Isn't that relationship a touch assymetrical? And what do you think happens to the weaker side? And why do you insist that such a process does not involve 'force'?
> It's the wish of the people in one culture for what they > perceive as the benefits of the others that brings about the change now, > not someone else's rules imposed by force. And who has the right to tell > them that they shouldn't want that?
Why would they perceive that the language and culture which had been theirs for generations (centuries, in fact), and through which they had hitherto lived every aspect of their lives, was so inferior that they start to want to be members solely of a culture not their own? Could it be because they were told, often, loudly and at every point of contact between them and temporal (and indeed spiritual) power that their culture *was* inferior, and that it should be abandoned for that of the ruling powers? What they 'want' or *think* they want will inevitably be coloured by that, so they end up wanting it because those in whose interests it was for them to be assimilated to the dominant culture had told them that they should want it.
This is not to claim that they are stupid; merely that they are human.
>> Did the English language spread as it has done because it and its >> attendant culture were instrinsically better suited to the 'real >> world' than the languages and cultures of those upon whom they were >> visited? No, it was because English happens to be the native language >> of the two biggest empires (politically, economically and militarily) >> that humankind has ever known.
> According to Robert Graves (not the most trustworthy of sources, > admittedly), in the time of the Emperor Claudius there was hardly anyone > left who spoke Etruscan; all the Etruscans spoke Latin like any other > civilised people. Plus ça change...
Just because it happened then (even if Graves could be believed - he wasn't there, and was no historian) doesn't mean the morality of it shouldn't pass unchallenged when the process looks like repeating itself.
>> What once was done by guns, swords and priests has latterly been done >> by finance, propaganda and saturation.
> So it does no harm. If you don't have to use force to impose your > culture on another, then that other must want yours.
Bloody hell, Lesley! Why can't you get it into your head that force does *not* involve merely physical domination? Have you never heard of the power of propaganda (including political, religious and commercial propaganda - which is called 'advertising', but which is much the same beast)?
>> So the fact that more than half the population spoke the language as >> late as 1891, whereas now there are only about *seventeen* communities >> in the whole country where 80%+ of the inhabitants speak it is *not* >> down simply to the abandonment of 'the old ways' or that what has been >> lost was simply 'no longer needed or wanted'.
> There's no law now saying that people can't talk Welsh and teach it to > their children if they want to, just as there's no law saying that they > must speak English.
Yet the fact remains that, even today, if you want to have any commerce with an arm of the British state, you will find it far easier to do it in English because - even if the facility for the use of Welsh is there - you have to ask specially for it. Do you just possibly think that the fact that Welsh speakers - should they be minded to want a service in their own language in their own country - have to make a special request for it just might extend that sense of inferiority that that same state has encouraged and reinforced?
>> It was because the language was deliberately deprived of any official >> status whatsoever, the politicians and pundits who dominated public >> discourse kept repeating variants on the mantra, "it's inferior, let >> it die, be *modern*", and that the population was bombarded from all >> sides with English-this and English-that so that they actually came to >> *believe* that the language and culture which had been theirs for >> hundreds of years was in some fundamental way inferior.
> Not IME; a large part of my grandparents' and my mother's humour > involved showing how the Welsh are superior in every way to the English. > This did not annoy my father as much as it could have done, since > although he was born in England his family were Romanian. But I haven't > been there for a while; perhaps the Welsh national perceptions of > Welshness have changed in the last thirty-odd years.
It is one thing to claim in jest that the Welsh are superior to the English. Every cultural group does something similar. It doesn't change the facts on the ground, however.
>> When you place a language or culture into an inferior or submissive >> rôle, you place those who uphold them in that position as well.
> Only if they agree to it, and all the Welsh people I have ever known > (not excluding present company) have seen themselves as being far from > inferior and submissive. Which is as it should be of course.
How generous of you. By what process would people 'agree' to become inferior, do you think? And would they have reached that happy state without a great deal of propagandising on the benefits of seeing their own inheritance as worthless?
>> My own Taid (grandfather) was a case in point. A native Welsh-speaker >> (and this in the old North Wales coalfield, not in the mountain >> fastnesses), he saw no point in passing the language on to any of his >> children (this was in the 1920s and 30s) because he - along with >> nearly all of his class - had been 'persuaded' that it was dying >> anyway, and was no use to the 'modern' world.
> My grandfather, born in the Rhondda around 1880, didn't speak English > until he went to school, when he was forced to do so as you say. My > grandmother was also completely bilingual, though her family often spoke > English at home. My grandparents mostly spoke English at home; however, > they tried to teach Welsh to their only child, my mother, but she wasn't > having any of it. Not because it wasn't modern but because she wasn't > interested.
If they spoke mostly English at home, /pace/ them, then they were part of the problem. If they didn't speak Welsh to their child when she was a child *as the normal medium of communication in the home*, then it's hardly suprising if their daughter regarded Welsh as 'uninteresting', as she would probably have regarded it as nothing more than an 'add-on' rather than an integral part of her identity. This was widespread, as I have already related.
On 11 Nov 2009, Lesley Weston <brightly_coloured_b...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote: >> IME, self-concious preservation of culture is usually done by the >> members of the culture. It's the outsiders who insist people have to >> move with the times (ie, do things *their* way).
> In all the cases I can think of, it's the other way round. I used to > sing folk songs in folk clubs, long ago, along with many other urban, > middle-class people. There was a movement to take Folk to the folk, > but it never really took off, since the folk in question were simply > not interested.
It possibly depends what you consider to be "the culture".
The "tartan and shortbread" view of Scotland, for instance, is *not* an example of English people celebrating Scottish culture and the Scots finding it entirely embarassing. Because the "tartan and shortbread" view of Scotland is *not* Scottish culture and never was. It's a parody of Scottish culture[1] created by people who aren't the least bit interested in real Scottish culture. The lack of interest Scottish people have in it isn't because we're not interested in our culture, it's because *that's* *not* *our* *culture*. In fact, the patronising portrayal of Scottish culture in the meedja is part of what's causing it to decay.
[1] In fact, strictly speaking, it's a parody *of* a parody of Highland culture, the original parody being created by Lowlanders in the late 18th century (thanks, Sir Walter), after the real culture was essentially declared illegal following the '45.
-- Dave "All those with psychokinesis, raise my hand." The Room With No Doors, Kate Orman
Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote: > On 11 Nov 2009, Lesley Weston <brightly_coloured_b...@yahoo.co.uk> > wrote:
>> Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
>>> IME, self-concious preservation of culture is usually done by the >>> members of the culture. It's the outsiders who insist people have to >>> move with the times (ie, do things *their* way).
>> In all the cases I can think of, it's the other way round. I used to >> sing folk songs in folk clubs, long ago, along with many other urban, >> middle-class people. There was a movement to take Folk to the folk, >> but it never really took off, since the folk in question were simply >> not interested.
> It possibly depends what you consider to be "the culture".
> The "tartan and shortbread" view of Scotland, for instance, is *not* an > example of English people celebrating Scottish culture and the Scots > finding it entirely embarassing. Because the "tartan and shortbread" view > of Scotland is *not* Scottish culture and never was.
I didn't think it was, though I'll admit I don't really have much idea of what Scottish culture actually is. And anyway - /which/ Scottish culture? Lowland or Highland? Mainland or islands? etc.
> It's a parody of > Scottish culture[1] created by people who aren't the least bit interested > in real Scottish culture.
Just like the parodies of any conquered people put out by the conquerors.
> The lack of interest Scottish people have in it > isn't because we're not interested in our culture, it's because *that's* > *not* *our* *culture*. In fact, the patronising portrayal of Scottish > culture in the meedja is part of what's causing it to decay.
> [1] In fact, strictly speaking, it's a parody *of* a parody of Highland > culture, the original parody being created by Lowlanders in the late 18th > century (thanks, Sir Walter), after the real culture was essentially > declared illegal following the '45.
That seemed to be the English way of dealing with other peoples around then. The current practices, while more defensible ethically, are rather more ludicrous. See the Quebec language laws, put in place by the French Canadian government of Quebec but thoroughly endorsed by the Federal Government of Canada, which actually means the English Canadian Government even though some of our Prime Ministers lately have been French Canadian. These led, among other embarrassments, to the sale of matzoh being declared illegal in Quebec because the boxes said things in English and Hebrew, but not in French.
-- Lesley Weston
The addy above is real, but I won't see anything posted to it for a long time. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca, adjusting as necessary.
>> But what's happening to every culture in the world now, not just the >> Welsh one, and what has always happened whenever two cultures meet, >> doesn't involve force.
> I spent two hours this morning in a meeting where the other participants > didn't seem capable of understanding what I was telling them, so I'm a > bit reluctant to repeat the experience so soon afterwards (especially as > it may confirm that my communication skills aren't what I thought they > were), but here goes:
<snip>
I have to say Nigel's arguments are more than convincing. No one ever really *wants* their culture to change for something else. If it were possible, the French would have done it by now (ooh!) It almost always happens by a mixture of propaganda, power, the national equivalent of peer pressure, financial incentives, envy, etc.
|
