OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
I think the idea we're currently living under an American imperium is a nonsense.
Sure, they are the dominant Western power, and act in their national interest accordingly, which sometimes is reflected in lopsided trade deals and alliances that reflect that, but it's not remotely comparable to what China is doing or wants to do.
In Empire, you only need to plant the flag when threatened by other powers. If everything you want can be achieved without the expenditure of annexing and garrisoning a territory, it's by far the better way of doing it. There are (apparently) 24,000 US military personnel in the UK. They know everything we know, and they appear to have a veto over our foreign policy, and there's more than a suggestion that they also meddle extensively in our domestic politics. All that without planting an American flag.
If they have a veto over our foreign policy, it's a pretty poor one.
They failed to stop us from leaving the EU, or get us to take action in Syria.
Re the Cost of Living, round me the price of petrol has shot up. It is now 20 pence higher than the price it dropped to after Sunak's bung.
Really painful.
Even if the PM is replaced, what does the new PM say or do about this? What would Labour say or do?
A sixth of that increase is directly going to HMRC as VAT as windfall government income, so those who say the government can do nothing are wrong. That money should be recycled back to the poorest third or so, not just the poorest ten per cent. It should not be done by age, or extra given to those who own loads of houses.
The German Federal government are seemingly massively reducing fuel duty and making local public transport effectively free for the summer...
That's the sort of creative thinking Labour should be doing. Really cheap or free public transport (buses especially - trains may not cope with the demand) - provide incentives to get people out of their cars, saving them money and moving towards green targets. Such policies were hugely popular in, for example, Sheffield and London in my youth.
You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money
Bus pass round here is VERY useful. We don't all live where you do.
Well if you are a pensioner and have all the time in the world maybe....trying to get to work on time and a bus is a complete and utter non starter for most outside london
The Lothian Buses are generally very useful. Seriously so.
Yes to you because you are retired.
I'm still cursed with having to work, but I'll fight anyone who says Lothian buses aren't fantastic. The car's just nuisance if you live in the Edinburgh suburbs and want to commute in. And what you going to do? Park on Prince's Street? Tell me about door-to-door if you're going to Boots or the Waverley Market. Lucky to parked within a mile.
Re the Cost of Living, round me the price of petrol has shot up. It is now 20 pence higher than the price it dropped to after Sunak's bung.
Really painful.
Even if the PM is replaced, what does the new PM say or do about this? What would Labour say or do?
A sixth of that increase is directly going to HMRC as VAT as windfall government income, so those who say the government can do nothing are wrong. That money should be recycled back to the poorest third or so, not just the poorest ten per cent. It should not be done by age, or extra given to those who own loads of houses.
The German Federal government are seemingly massively reducing fuel duty and making local public transport effectively free for the summer...
That's the sort of creative thinking Labour should be doing. Really cheap or free public transport (buses especially - trains may not cope with the demand) - provide incentives to get people out of their cars, saving them money and moving towards green targets. Such policies were hugely popular in, for example, Sheffield and London in my youth.
You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money
Bus pass round here is VERY useful. We don't all live where you do.
Well if you are a pensioner and have all the time in the world maybe....trying to get to work on time and a bus is a complete and utter non starter for most outside london
The Lothian Buses are generally very useful. Seriously so.
Yes to you because you are retired.
No; I used them very heavily when I was working, and my colleagues who still do also use them.
You can save a lot on fuel bills with a Lothian bus pass. And from the top floor get to know how other peoples' gardens are arranged. No need ever to alight.
At the end of this coming week Labour may find that Johnson has survived a VONC, but only just, limping on as a lame duck PM and about to face the voters of two by-elections.
Good times for the Opposition.
At the end of this coming week Labour will find that Johnson has lost a VONC, departing as PM and Labour and the LibDems about to face the voters of two by-elections with their fox shot.....
You have inside knowledge of Tiverton & Honiton to assert that? I ask because you attempted to flame me for making a forecast, although you have gone a lot further with predictions and timescales.
You may be right but I am a little wary.
@MarqueeMark has claimed the Conservative vote is holding up in Tiverton and he may be right though I've often found canvassing claims especially by those who are reporting favourable canvassing for their own party are about as reliable and useful as the Stodge Saturday Patent.
It's far more interesting when those canvassing for a party report it's not going well (as those who remember @david_herdson's prescient contribution on the eve of the 2017 election will attest).
Tories to win T and H is possible but not probable. Two reasons: they might anyway, because of the huge swing required and demography. Secondly because by the time of the election there is a X% chance that we will know that Boris is ousted. That chance is maybe about 25%.
if this happens it greatly increases the chance of holding T and H.
Wm Hills 9/2 on Tories to win T and H with Lab to win Wakefield has a bit of value. I don't think that price truly reflects the chance of Boris being ousted soon. (Wakefield goes Labour come what may IMHO, so its a free bit on the bet).
Personally, I think that's dreadful value. Most likely is Tories lose both. But holding Wakefield whilst losing Tiverton is significantly more likely than the reverse just based on recent by-elections. Lab/Con will be attritional, whereas Lib Dems have their tails up and have completely rediscovered their protest vote mojo (for what it's worth).
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
Show me a path to today's 21st Century world with its international rules-based order, and ascendancy of liberal democracy, that doesn't go through the British Empire please.
The slave trade doesn't count, do you hear, because it happened to BLACK PEOPLE. Phew. Because if it had been whiteys we'd have to face the fact that it was up there with the holocaust as an atrocity, on many measures (% of humanity at the time who were victims, multi generation knock on effects) very arguably worse.
Bollocks
Slavery has happened to all kinds of people at all times
White “British” people were enslaved by the Romans, the Vikings, the Barbary slavers and the Ottomans
Arabs have enslaved people from all over for centuries. Black people have enslaved black people. Africans have enslaved Africans. The Romans enslaved everyone. The Chinese enslaved Mongolians and the Mongolians enslaved Chinese. Russians enslaved Russians and called them serfs. The greatest slave trade of all was probably that done throughout Africa by Islam over a thousand years, right into the 20th century, and so on, and so forth
Yes, slavery is probably the single greatest evil of human history, but the idea it was mainly done by white Western Europeans on blacks is silly and wrong
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
I think the idea we're currently living under an American imperium is a nonsense.
Sure, they are the dominant Western power, and act in their national interest accordingly, which sometimes is reflected in lopsided trade deals and alliances that reflect that, but it's not remotely comparable to what China is doing or wants to do.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
I'm enjoying the contrasting views. @Casino_Royale I agree and was using a lazy trope which you're right to call out, notwithstanding @Farooq's interesting article (thanks). Whatever America has done over the past couple of hundred years, it is not empire as we would know the term, nor is it, I think, as overt as what China is likely to do in the coming hundred years. I would argue it has probably had as much influence on the world as it is today as Britain's empire, though.
@Luckyguy1983 I wasn't actually directly comparing the two (I was comparing America's not-quite-imperialism with a future Chinese version).
But you are casting China in America's role. In actuality, though America is declining, it is not going to disappear from the face of the earth imminently, and will still have a powerful military. So China will not be world hegemon in the same way that the USA was after the collapse of the USSR.
What is more likely is a situation with multiple powers, and I don't think that Britain has anything to fear from that. As a matter of fact, 'balance of powers' was the overriding aim of British foreign policy for many years.
At the end of this coming week Labour may find that Johnson has survived a VONC, but only just, limping on as a lame duck PM and about to face the voters of two by-elections.
Good times for the Opposition.
At the end of this coming week Labour will find that Johnson has lost a VONC, departing as PM and Labour and the LibDems about to face the voters of two by-elections with their fox shot.....
You have inside knowledge of Tiverton & Honiton to assert that? I ask because you attempted to flame me for making a forecast, although you have gone a lot further with predictions and timescales.
You may be right but I am a little wary.
@MarqueeMark has claimed the Conservative vote is holding up in Tiverton and he may be right though I've often found canvassing claims especially by those who are reporting favourable canvassing for their own party are about as reliable and useful as the Stodge Saturday Patent.
I think he's right. Anecdotally the LibDems are not finding T&H as easy as Labour are finding Wakefield.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
...the idea that people who identify as victims of domestic violence must always be believed. No one feels that they can disagree with it.
Agreed that this is a very imperfect solution, though it could still be claimed that it is the least bad solution, given how intractable the problem is. I don't have enough knowledge of the specifics to know whether this is a reasonable claim, but I think (in agreement with your last paragraph) that any possible solutions will be messy and problematic, but that they might still be worth pursuing. Thanks for the reply.
The moment you make it victims must be believed...you open the door to people claiming to be victims to hit back at people because they fell out. It is absolutely the worst situation.
Some qualifiers are needed...you open the door to (a small number of) people (very occasionally) claiming to be victims to hit back at people because they fell out.
I'm not denying its a problem. I'm saying it might be better than the current situation.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
Show me a path to today's 21st Century world with its international rules-based order, and ascendancy of liberal democracy, that doesn't go through the British Empire please.
The slave trade doesn't count, do you hear, because it happened to BLACK PEOPLE. Phew. Because if it had been whiteys we'd have to face the fact that it was up there with the holocaust as an atrocity, on many measures (% of humanity at the time who were victims, multi generation knock on effects) very arguably worse.
I don't know why you think that slavery was only inflicted upon black people by white people. Chattel slavery has been inflicted upon all ethnic groups by all ethnic groups.
Lets hope we wake to a Graham Brady presser announcement and the oafish fat turd in number 10 does a runner before hes booted. Then we can start looking at whats really going on in the polls/public opinion and wait for Durham Police to sack Beer boy and the Ginger nut.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
Thanks.
Can imperialism be permanently held back? No. It is protean and shape shifting. Power over others, and being in thrall to others, in small and great forms is part of the fabric of human nature. Currently it is tamed for some by the merits of democracy and also, for us, the benign nature of NATO. I like it that way. It won't last for ever.
At the end of this coming week Labour may find that Johnson has survived a VONC, but only just, limping on as a lame duck PM and about to face the voters of two by-elections.
Good times for the Opposition.
At the end of this coming week Labour will find that Johnson has lost a VONC, departing as PM and Labour and the LibDems about to face the voters of two by-elections with their fox shot.....
Or we lose our greatest election winner since Thatcher and spend a generation in opposition, perhaps deservedly so.
After all we lost 3 out of 4 of the general elections following the ousting of PM Thatcher by her own MPs, an act of treachery she certainly never forgave.
Labour too lost all 4 general elections after effectively forcing Blair out earlier than he wanted in favour of Brown
You have that the wrong way round. The elections were not lost because the leaders were deposed, but rather the leaders were deposed because the elections were thought lost otherwise. Correctly by the Tories, and fairly near correct by Labour, with the GFC getting in the way.
That's the bit that the Conservative-minded really fear. That, even without Boris, the election of 2024 ends in defeat. It will have been fourteen and a bit years, the opposition won't look scary (even Starmer in Sturgeon's pocket might leave English voters thinking "why not?") and the economy will have been miserable. And nobody out there has his magic touch.
Ditching Johnson will still be the right thing to do, even if it's just turning a likely rout into a defeat. But to admit to oneself that it's just about cutting losses... Not an easy step to take emotionally.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
I think the idea we're currently living under an American imperium is a nonsense.
Sure, they are the dominant Western power, and act in their national interest accordingly, which sometimes is reflected in lopsided trade deals and alliances that reflect that, but it's not remotely comparable to what China is doing or wants to do.
In Empire, you only need to plant the flag when threatened by other powers. If everything you want can be achieved without the expenditure of annexing and garrisoning a territory, it's by far the better way of doing it. There are (apparently) 24,000 US military personnel in the UK. They know everything we know, and they appear to have a veto over our foreign policy, and there's more than a suggestion that they also meddle extensively in our domestic politics. All that without planting an American flag.
If they have a veto over our foreign policy, it's a pretty poor one.
They failed to stop us from leaving the EU, or get us to take action in Syria.
The world will always have hegemonic powers. The USA is better than most.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
...the idea that people who identify as victims of domestic violence must always be believed. No one feels that they can disagree with it.
Agreed that this is a very imperfect solution, though it could still be claimed that it is the least bad solution, given how intractable the problem is. I don't have enough knowledge of the specifics to know whether this is a reasonable claim, but I think (in agreement with your last paragraph) that any possible solutions will be messy and problematic, but that they might still be worth pursuing. Thanks for the reply.
The moment you make it victims must be believed...you open the door to people claiming to be victims to hit back at people because they fell out. It is absolutely the worst situation.
I think the suggestion is that taking this line is better than immediately assuming something like 'victims are liars'. But I don't agree with either approach. I was just making the point that people always like a simple answer.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
I think the idea we're currently living under an American imperium is a nonsense.
Sure, they are the dominant Western power, and act in their national interest accordingly, which sometimes is reflected in lopsided trade deals and alliances that reflect that, but it's not remotely comparable to what China is doing or wants to do.
In Empire, you only need to plant the flag when threatened by other powers. If everything you want can be achieved without the expenditure of annexing and garrisoning a territory, it's by far the better way of doing it. There are (apparently) 24,000 US military personnel in the UK. They know everything we know, and they appear to have a veto over our foreign policy, and there's more than a suggestion that they also meddle extensively in our domestic politics. All that without planting an American flag.
If they have a veto over our foreign policy, it's a pretty poor one.
They failed to stop us from leaving the EU, or get us to take action in Syria.
And in both instances, those failures of the Americans will being done occurred due to unexpected (miraculous I'd say) democratic events which couldn't be countermanded without seriously upsetting the applecart. The way that Cameron's Government (I think it was Hague), snivelled after the vote about how 'the Americans have been very good about it', indicates that their clear expectation was that Britain would join the Syrian shitshow, because they said so.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
Show me a path to today's 21st Century world with its international rules-based order, and ascendancy of liberal democracy, that doesn't go through the British Empire please.
The slave trade doesn't count, do you hear, because it happened to BLACK PEOPLE. Phew. Because if it had been whiteys we'd have to face the fact that it was up there with the holocaust as an atrocity, on many measures (% of humanity at the time who were victims, multi generation knock on effects) very arguably worse.
Bollocks
Slavery has happened to all kinds of people at all times
White “British” people were enslaved by the Romans, the Vikings, the Barbary slavers and the Ottomans
Arabs have enslaved people from all over for centuries. Black people have enslaved black people. Africans have enslaved Africans. The Romans enslaved everyone. The Chinese enslaved Mongolians and the Mongolians enslaved Chinese. Russians enslaved Russians and called them serfs. The greatest slave trade of all was probably that done throughout Africa by Islam over a thousand years, right into the 20th century, and so on, and so forth
Yes, slavery is probably the single greatest evil of human history, but the idea it was mainly done by white Western Europeans on blacks is silly and wrong
Just wrong. The point about slavery through much of history was you couldn't afford freeloaders so slavery was the humane alternative to execution for POWs. A self declared Christian nation or empire doing it proactively for profit in the tea and sugar trade, is something else again. You could just as legitimately argue that genocide has been around forever and is therefore now fine
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
Show me a path to today's 21st Century world with its international rules-based order, and ascendancy of liberal democracy, that doesn't go through the British Empire please.
The slave trade doesn't count, do you hear, because it happened to BLACK PEOPLE. Phew. Because if it had been whiteys we'd have to face the fact that it was up there with the holocaust as an atrocity, on many measures (% of humanity at the time who were victims, multi generation knock on effects) very arguably worse.
I don't know why you think that slavery was only inflicted upon black people by white people. Chattel slavery has been inflicted upon all ethnic groups by all ethnic groups.
Yes, but how we industrialised the Atlantic triangular trade was fairly unprecedented in the modern world.
At the end of this coming week Labour may find that Johnson has survived a VONC, but only just, limping on as a lame duck PM and about to face the voters of two by-elections.
Good times for the Opposition.
At the end of this coming week Labour will find that Johnson has lost a VONC, departing as PM and Labour and the LibDems about to face the voters of two by-elections with their fox shot.....
You have inside knowledge of Tiverton & Honiton to assert that? I ask because you attempted to flame me for making a forecast, although you have gone a lot further with predictions and timescales.
You may be right but I am a little wary.
@MarqueeMark has claimed the Conservative vote is holding up in Tiverton and he may be right though I've often found canvassing claims especially by those who are reporting favourable canvassing for their own party are about as reliable and useful as the Stodge Saturday Patent.
It's far more interesting when those canvassing for a party report it's not going well (as those who remember @david_herdson's prescient contribution on the eve of the 2017 election will attest).
Tories to win T and H is possible but not probable. Two reasons: they might anyway, because of the huge swing required and demography. Secondly because by the time of the election there is a X% chance that we will know that Boris is ousted. That chance is maybe about 25%.
if this happens it greatly increases the chance of holding T and H.
Wm Hills 9/2 on Tories to win T and H with Lab to win Wakefield has a bit of value. I don't think that price truly reflects the chance of Boris being ousted soon. (Wakefield goes Labour come what may IMHO, so its a free bit on the bet).
Personally, I think that's dreadful value. Most likely is Tories lose both. But holding Wakefield whilst losing Tiverton is significantly more likely than the reverse just based on recent by-elections. Lab/Con will be attritional, whereas Lib Dems have their tails up and have completely rediscovered their protest vote mojo (for what it's worth).
Being too idle to do the research, can anyone help. Let’s assume Brady announces tomorrow that he has enough letters asking for a VONC in the current Tory Party Leader. I understand that such a vote could be as early as Wednesday but what’s the last day it could be held?
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
Show me a path to today's 21st Century world with its international rules-based order, and ascendancy of liberal democracy, that doesn't go through the British Empire please.
I think you misunderstood my point.
It was a general comment, rather than in direct response to yours.
The WTO didn't exist in the 18th or 19th Century. Therefore, if you wanted to trade, and others were resistant to that trade, you had a choice: not trade at all, or impose it at the point of a sword. Choosing the latter led to a need to defend trading posts against competing powers, and more often than not a need for political alliances within, or control over, their hinterland to bolster their security.
Once all major non-democratic powers had been defeated post-WWII, and the security and stability of global shipping lanes and international rules-based institutions established under allied Western protection, that was no longer necessary.
If that ever falls apart we will very quickly go back to might makes right.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
Show me a path to today's 21st Century world with its international rules-based order, and ascendancy of liberal democracy, that doesn't go through the British Empire please.
The slave trade doesn't count, do you hear, because it happened to BLACK PEOPLE. Phew. Because if it had been whiteys we'd have to face the fact that it was up there with the holocaust as an atrocity, on many measures (% of humanity at the time who were victims, multi generation knock on effects) very arguably worse.
Bollocks
Slavery has happened to all kinds of people at all times
White “British” people were enslaved by the Romans, the Vikings, the Barbary slavers and the Ottomans
Arabs have enslaved people from all over for centuries. Black people have enslaved black people. Africans have enslaved Africans. The Romans enslaved everyone. The Chinese enslaved Mongolians and the Mongolians enslaved Chinese. Russians enslaved Russians and called them serfs. The greatest slave trade of all was probably that done throughout Africa by Islam over a thousand years, right into the 20th century, and so on, and so forth
Yes, slavery is probably the single greatest evil of human history, but the idea it was mainly done by white Western Europeans on blacks is silly and wrong
Just wrong. The point about slavery through much of history was you couldn't afford freeloaders so slavery was the humane alternative to execution for POWs. A self declared Christian nation or empire doing it proactively for profit in the tea and sugar trade, is something else again. You could just as legitimately argue that genocide has been around forever and is therefore now fine
At the end of this coming week Labour may find that Johnson has survived a VONC, but only just, limping on as a lame duck PM and about to face the voters of two by-elections.
Good times for the Opposition.
At the end of this coming week Labour will find that Johnson has lost a VONC, departing as PM and Labour and the LibDems about to face the voters of two by-elections with their fox shot.....
You have inside knowledge of Tiverton & Honiton to assert that? I ask because you attempted to flame me for making a forecast, although you have gone a lot further with predictions and timescales.
You may be right but I am a little wary.
@MarqueeMark has claimed the Conservative vote is holding up in Tiverton and he may be right though I've often found canvassing claims especially by those who are reporting favourable canvassing for their own party are about as reliable and useful as the Stodge Saturday Patent.
I think he's right. Anecdotally the LibDems are not finding T&H as easy as Labour are finding Wakefield.
As well as the differential in gap to close of course its outgoing rapist nonce versus twit who watched a booby video. Frankly if Labour don't win Wakefield by a country mile given the circumstances of the by election they need shooting.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
...the idea that people who identify as victims of domestic violence must always be believed. No one feels that they can disagree with it.
Agreed that this is a very imperfect solution, though it could still be claimed that it is the least bad solution, given how intractable the problem is. I don't have enough knowledge of the specifics to know whether this is a reasonable claim, but I think (in agreement with your last paragraph) that any possible solutions will be messy and problematic, but that they might still be worth pursuing. Thanks for the reply.
The moment you make it victims must be believed...you open the door to people claiming to be victims to hit back at people because they fell out. It is absolutely the worst situation.
Some qualifiers are needed...you open the door to (a small number of) people (very occasionally) claiming to be victims to hit back at people because they fell out.
I'm not denying its a problem. I'm saying it might be better than the current situation.
How many innocent people are you prepared to lock up for hate crime, rape, or domestic abuse because you believe someone who isn't being truthful?
Lets not forget here believing people because they say they are victims automatically means taking liberty from others
At the end of this coming week Labour may find that Johnson has survived a VONC, but only just, limping on as a lame duck PM and about to face the voters of two by-elections.
Good times for the Opposition.
At the end of this coming week Labour will find that Johnson has lost a VONC, departing as PM and Labour and the LibDems about to face the voters of two by-elections with their fox shot.....
You have inside knowledge of Tiverton & Honiton to assert that? I ask because you attempted to flame me for making a forecast, although you have gone a lot further with predictions and timescales.
You may be right but I am a little wary.
@MarqueeMark has claimed the Conservative vote is holding up in Tiverton and he may be right though I've often found canvassing claims especially by those who are reporting favourable canvassing for their own party are about as reliable and useful as the Stodge Saturday Patent.
It's far more interesting when those canvassing for a party report it's not going well (as those who remember @david_herdson's prescient contribution on the eve of the 2017 election will attest).
Tories to win T and H is possible but not probable. Two reasons: they might anyway, because of the huge swing required and demography. Secondly because by the time of the election there is a X% chance that we will know that Boris is ousted. That chance is maybe about 25%.
if this happens it greatly increases the chance of holding T and H.
Wm Hills 9/2 on Tories to win T and H with Lab to win Wakefield has a bit of value. I don't think that price truly reflects the chance of Boris being ousted soon. (Wakefield goes Labour come what may IMHO, so its a free bit on the bet).
Personally, I think that's dreadful value. Most likely is Tories lose both. But holding Wakefield whilst losing Tiverton is significantly more likely than the reverse just based on recent by-elections. Lab/Con will be attritional, whereas Lib Dems have their tails up and have completely rediscovered their protest vote mojo (for what it's worth).
Thanks! If you think the Tories can win Wakefield, two points: You can make a killing at the bookies. Secondly, can I interest you in the very reasonable price at which I am selling Brooklyn Bridge?
Lets hope we wake to a Graham Brady presser announcement and the oafish fat turd in number 10 does a runner before hes booted. Then we can start looking at whats really going on in the polls/public opinion and wait for Durham Police to sack Beer boy and the Ginger nut.
Were those the biscuits they were eating at beergate - my favourites and my grandson's
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
Show me a path to today's 21st Century world with its international rules-based order, and ascendancy of liberal democracy, that doesn't go through the British Empire please.
The slave trade doesn't count, do you hear, because it happened to BLACK PEOPLE. Phew. Because if it had been whiteys we'd have to face the fact that it was up there with the holocaust as an atrocity, on many measures (% of humanity at the time who were victims, multi generation knock on effects) very arguably worse.
I don't know why you think that slavery was only inflicted upon black people by white people. Chattel slavery has been inflicted upon all ethnic groups by all ethnic groups.
Do fuck off, love, I am a professional ancient historian.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
Show me a path to today's 21st Century world with its international rules-based order, and ascendancy of liberal democracy, that doesn't go through the British Empire please.
The slave trade doesn't count, do you hear, because it happened to BLACK PEOPLE. Phew. Because if it had been whiteys we'd have to face the fact that it was up there with the holocaust as an atrocity, on many measures (% of humanity at the time who were victims, multi generation knock on effects) very arguably worse.
I don't know why you think that slavery was only inflicted upon black people by white people. Chattel slavery has been inflicted upon all ethnic groups by all ethnic groups.
Yes, but how we industrialised the Atlantic triangular trade was fairly unprecedented in the modern world.
But in absolute terms, alone, more Africans were enslaved by Islam than by Western Europeans
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
I think the idea we're currently living under an American imperium is a nonsense.
Sure, they are the dominant Western power, and act in their national interest accordingly, which sometimes is reflected in lopsided trade deals and alliances that reflect that, but it's not remotely comparable to what China is doing or wants to do.
So, you've posted me an article showing me the history of the US intervening in regime change over the last 200 years and that's supposed to be evidence of an American empire we live under today, is it?
We (and they) both were interested in regime change in Iraq, Syria and Libya in just the last 10 years - and, although unofficial, we're both very interested in regime change away from Putin in Russia today.
That's not "empire". It's foreign policy.
Posted in response to "what China is doing", which I took to mean its sour-faced meddling and leveraged of finance and infrastructure to exert control over other countries. My response was intended as a rebuke to anyone who thinks America is innocent of similar.
If you mean something different, then spit it out.
My view on imperialism is that the concept doesn't just wink into being past some magical red line; it's a continuum. America has done a lot on that spectrum, from outright colonisation and extermination, through to benign and charitable interventions to help allies. And literally everything in between. America has an imperial history, such a fact cannot reasonably be disputed. And I think it's totally fair to say we still live in an American world. It is a hegemonic power you don't want to be on the wrong side of. Would I call it "imperium"? No. But such descriptions don't fall away as obvious nonsense either.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
...the idea that people who identify as victims of domestic violence must always be believed. No one feels that they can disagree with it.
Agreed that this is a very imperfect solution, though it could still be claimed that it is the least bad solution, given how intractable the problem is. I don't have enough knowledge of the specifics to know whether this is a reasonable claim, but I think (in agreement with your last paragraph) that any possible solutions will be messy and problematic, but that they might still be worth pursuing. Thanks for the reply.
The moment you make it victims must be believed...you open the door to people claiming to be victims to hit back at people because they fell out. It is absolutely the worst situation.
I think the suggestion is that taking this line is better than immediately assuming something like 'victims are liars'. But I don't agree with either approach. I was just making the point that people always like a simple answer.
No one is suggesting that victims shouldnt be believed enough for an investigation. Where I draw the line is victims should be believed enough to make for a prosecution and guilty verdict on the grounds of someone saying they are a victim
Re the Cost of Living, round me the price of petrol has shot up. It is now 20 pence higher than the price it dropped to after Sunak's bung.
Really painful.
Even if the PM is replaced, what does the new PM say or do about this? What would Labour say or do?
A sixth of that increase is directly going to HMRC as VAT as windfall government income, so those who say the government can do nothing are wrong. That money should be recycled back to the poorest third or so, not just the poorest ten per cent. It should not be done by age, or extra given to those who own loads of houses.
The German Federal government are seemingly massively reducing fuel duty and making local public transport effectively free for the summer...
That's the sort of creative thinking Labour should be doing. Really cheap or free public transport (buses especially - trains may not cope with the demand) - provide incentives to get people out of their cars, saving them money and moving towards green targets. Such policies were hugely popular in, for example, Sheffield and London in my youth.
You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money
Charming, as ever. Buses are fabulous in Brighton. Serve all the city with frequent services - every 3-10 minutes on most routes. Much quicker than driving - only nutters (with obvious exceptions for those who really have no choice) try to drive into the centre. Buses are heavily used for access to all workplaces and shopping in the city. Could be even cheaper. But I guess you know best. (Different out in the sticks, obviously).
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
Show me a path to today's 21st Century world with its international rules-based order, and ascendancy of liberal democracy, that doesn't go through the British Empire please.
The slave trade doesn't count, do you hear, because it happened to BLACK PEOPLE. Phew. Because if it had been whiteys we'd have to face the fact that it was up there with the holocaust as an atrocity, on many measures (% of humanity at the time who were victims, multi generation knock on effects) very arguably worse.
I don't know why you think that slavery was only inflicted upon black people by white people. Chattel slavery has been inflicted upon all ethnic groups by all ethnic groups.
He's not a poster I engage with, but I don't even read him after 6pm which seems to be when he hits the bottle and exhibits his usual personality change.
One of his favourite penchants is to troll other posters with accusations of racism, which is interesting as it's something he's not shy of dabbling in himself from time to time.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
Show me a path to today's 21st Century world with its international rules-based order, and ascendancy of liberal democracy, that doesn't go through the British Empire please.
The slave trade doesn't count, do you hear, because it happened to BLACK PEOPLE. Phew. Because if it had been whiteys we'd have to face the fact that it was up there with the holocaust as an atrocity, on many measures (% of humanity at the time who were victims, multi generation knock on effects) very arguably worse.
Bollocks
Slavery has happened to all kinds of people at all times
White “British” people were enslaved by the Romans, the Vikings, the Barbary slavers and the Ottomans
Arabs have enslaved people from all over for centuries. Black people have enslaved black people. Africans have enslaved Africans. The Romans enslaved everyone. The Chinese enslaved Mongolians and the Mongolians enslaved Chinese. Russians enslaved Russians and called them serfs. The greatest slave trade of all was probably that done throughout Africa by Islam over a thousand years, right into the 20th century, and so on, and so forth
Yes, slavery is probably the single greatest evil of human history, but the idea it was mainly done by white Western Europeans on blacks is silly and wrong
Last country to outlaw slavery was Mauretania in... 1981.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
Show me a path to today's 21st Century world with its international rules-based order, and ascendancy of liberal democracy, that doesn't go through the British Empire please.
The slave trade doesn't count, do you hear, because it happened to BLACK PEOPLE. Phew. Because if it had been whiteys we'd have to face the fact that it was up there with the holocaust as an atrocity, on many measures (% of humanity at the time who were victims, multi generation knock on effects) very arguably worse.
Bollocks
Slavery has happened to all kinds of people at all times
White “British” people were enslaved by the Romans, the Vikings, the Barbary slavers and the Ottomans
Arabs have enslaved people from all over for centuries. Black people have enslaved black people. Africans have enslaved Africans. The Romans enslaved everyone. The Chinese enslaved Mongolians and the Mongolians enslaved Chinese. Russians enslaved Russians and called them serfs. The greatest slave trade of all was probably that done throughout Africa by Islam over a thousand years, right into the 20th century, and so on, and so forth
Yes, slavery is probably the single greatest evil of human history, but the idea it was mainly done by white Western Europeans on blacks is silly and wrong
Just wrong. The point about slavery through much of history was you couldn't afford freeloaders so slavery was the humane alternative to execution for POWs. A self declared Christian nation or empire doing it proactively for profit in the tea and sugar trade, is something else again. You could just as legitimately argue that genocide has been around forever and is therefore now fine
Leon's post calls slavery 'the greatest evil in human history'; he doesn't say it's fine. The only one providing mealy mouthed justification for 'humane' slavery here is you.
At the end of this coming week Labour may find that Johnson has survived a VONC, but only just, limping on as a lame duck PM and about to face the voters of two by-elections.
Good times for the Opposition.
At the end of this coming week Labour will find that Johnson has lost a VONC, departing as PM and Labour and the LibDems about to face the voters of two by-elections with their fox shot.....
You have inside knowledge of Tiverton & Honiton to assert that? I ask because you attempted to flame me for making a forecast, although you have gone a lot further with predictions and timescales.
You may be right but I am a little wary.
@MarqueeMark has claimed the Conservative vote is holding up in Tiverton and he may be right though I've often found canvassing claims especially by those who are reporting favourable canvassing for their own party are about as reliable and useful as the Stodge Saturday Patent.
It's far more interesting when those canvassing for a party report it's not going well (as those who remember @david_herdson's prescient contribution on the eve of the 2017 election will attest).
Tories to win T and H is possible but not probable. Two reasons: they might anyway, because of the huge swing required and demography. Secondly because by the time of the election there is a X% chance that we will know that Boris is ousted. That chance is maybe about 25%.
if this happens it greatly increases the chance of holding T and H.
Wm Hills 9/2 on Tories to win T and H with Lab to win Wakefield has a bit of value. I don't think that price truly reflects the chance of Boris being ousted soon. (Wakefield goes Labour come what may IMHO, so its a free bit on the bet).
Personally, I think that's dreadful value. Most likely is Tories lose both. But holding Wakefield whilst losing Tiverton is significantly more likely than the reverse just based on recent by-elections. Lab/Con will be attritional, whereas Lib Dems have their tails up and have completely rediscovered their protest vote mojo (for what it's worth).
Being too idle to do the research, can anyone help. Let’s assume Brady announces tomorrow that he has enough letters asking for a VONC in the current Tory Party Leader. I understand that such a vote could be as early as Wednesday but what’s the last day it could be held?
Theresa May's was held within hours so maybe even earlier than Wednesday
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
I think the idea we're currently living under an American imperium is a nonsense.
Sure, they are the dominant Western power, and act in their national interest accordingly, which sometimes is reflected in lopsided trade deals and alliances that reflect that, but it's not remotely comparable to what China is doing or wants to do.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
I'm enjoying the contrasting views. @Casino_Royale I agree and was using a lazy trope which you're right to call out, notwithstanding @Farooq's interesting article (thanks). Whatever America has done over the past couple of hundred years, it is not empire as we would know the term, nor is it, I think, as overt as what China is likely to do in the coming hundred years. I would argue it has probably had as much influence on the world as it is today as Britain's empire, though.
@Luckyguy1983 I wasn't actually directly comparing the two (I was comparing America's not-quite-imperialism with a future Chinese version).
But you are casting China in America's role. In actuality, though America is declining, it is not going to disappear from the face of the earth imminently, and will still have a powerful military. So China will not be world hegemon in the same way that the USA was after the collapse of the USSR.
What is more likely is a situation with multiple powers, and I don't think that Britain has anything to fear from that. As a matter of fact, 'balance of powers' was the overriding aim of British foreign policy for many years.
Agreed a 'balance of powers' is probably good for many, not just Britain (assuming the major wars remain cold), and I think I'm persuaded by your view of the future over mine. Thanks.
Been oppressing Ireland for 800 years thanks for the support…
Good thing the government of Ireland is more nuanced.
an insecure and obsessive wanker
You dish out these terms, and similar, rather too readily imho
OK, wanker
Ok boomer
It doesn't really show you as very intelligent if you have to dismiss people with those terms, but unintelligent and stupid are others you hurl around.
Have you always been this much of an angry person?
Peace x
Swearing is not, and has never been, evidence of stupidity.
Just inarticulacy.
Definitely not. Swearing can be a high art at times. To swear creatively is one of the crown jewels of rhetoric; it's a skill to be admired when you see it done well. A good swear can disable an opponent, disarm and audience, or diffuse a tense moment. To do it well requires memory to know what has gone before, a poetic reflex to know what words complement which others, and the self-confidence to deliver it knowing that you are definitely touching taboos and often escalating an argument. These things don't come easily to all.
Lets hope we wake to a Graham Brady presser announcement and the oafish fat turd in number 10 does a runner before hes booted. Then we can start looking at whats really going on in the polls/public opinion and wait for Durham Police to sack Beer boy and the Ginger nut.
Were those the biscuits they were eating at beergate - my favourites and my grandson's
Starmer no, they are far too peppery and spicy for him. He is a rich tea man. Rayner dunks hers in Vindaloo and eats them whole.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
Is this from the BBC WS yesterday ("The Conversation") a counter example or added context?
Can a book change a young woman’s life? Kim Chakanetsa talks to two women in the publishing world about the importance of writing stories that inspire and empower girls.
Nnedi Okorafor is an award-winning Nigerian-American writer of fantasy and science fiction for both children and adults. Her books have strong female leads and draw inspiration from her Nigerian roots. Nnedi has also written comics for Marvel: she was the first woman to write the character of T'challa, the Black Panther, and she wrote a series about his tech loving sister, Shuri. She is a recipient of the World Fantasy, Hugo and Nebula Awards.
Mel Mazman is the chief product officer at Rebel Girls, a franchise publishing books and digital content aimed at empowering young women. The company started in 2016, with a crowdfunding campaign for Good Night Stories for Rebel Girls, a book featuring the stories of 100 inspirational women. Since then, they sold 7.5 million books in over 100 countries. Mel shares her insights on how the publishing industry is changing to cater for the needs and interests of younger generations of readers.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
Show me a path to today's 21st Century world with its international rules-based order, and ascendancy of liberal democracy, that doesn't go through the British Empire please.
The slave trade doesn't count, do you hear, because it happened to BLACK PEOPLE. Phew. Because if it had been whiteys we'd have to face the fact that it was up there with the holocaust as an atrocity, on many measures (% of humanity at the time who were victims, multi generation knock on effects) very arguably worse.
Bollocks
Slavery has happened to all kinds of people at all times
White “British” people were enslaved by the Romans, the Vikings, the Barbary slavers and the Ottomans
Arabs have enslaved people from all over for centuries. Black people have enslaved black people. Africans have enslaved Africans. The Romans enslaved everyone. The Chinese enslaved Mongolians and the Mongolians enslaved Chinese. Russians enslaved Russians and called them serfs. The greatest slave trade of all was probably that done throughout Africa by Islam over a thousand years, right into the 20th century, and so on, and so forth
Yes, slavery is probably the single greatest evil of human history, but the idea it was mainly done by white Western Europeans on blacks is silly and wrong
Just wrong. The point about slavery through much of history was you couldn't afford freeloaders so slavery was the humane alternative to execution for POWs. A self declared Christian nation or empire doing it proactively for profit in the tea and sugar trade, is something else again. You could just as legitimately argue that genocide has been around forever and is therefore now fine
Leon's post calls slavery 'the greatest evil in human history'; he doesn't say it's fine. The only one providing mealy mouthed justification for 'humane' slavery here is you.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
Thanks.
Can imperialism be permanently held back? No. It is protean and shape shifting. Power over others, and being in thrall to others, in small and great forms is part of the fabric of human nature. Currently it is tamed for some by the merits of democracy and also, for us, the benign nature of NATO. I like it that way. It won't last for ever.
I think that puts you firmly in one of my two sketched camps! I am suspicious of your certainty, hope that you're wrong, but suspect you may be right
Re the Cost of Living, round me the price of petrol has shot up. It is now 20 pence higher than the price it dropped to after Sunak's bung.
Really painful.
Even if the PM is replaced, what does the new PM say or do about this? What would Labour say or do?
A sixth of that increase is directly going to HMRC as VAT as windfall government income, so those who say the government can do nothing are wrong. That money should be recycled back to the poorest third or so, not just the poorest ten per cent. It should not be done by age, or extra given to those who own loads of houses.
The German Federal government are seemingly massively reducing fuel duty and making local public transport effectively free for the summer...
That's the sort of creative thinking Labour should be doing. Really cheap or free public transport (buses especially - trains may not cope with the demand) - provide incentives to get people out of their cars, saving them money and moving towards green targets. Such policies were hugely popular in, for example, Sheffield and London in my youth.
You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money
Charming, as ever. Buses are fabulous in Brighton. Serve all the city with frequent services - every 3-10 minutes on most routes. Much quicker than driving - only nutters (with obvious exceptions for those who really have no choice) try to drive into the centre. Buses are heavily used for access to all workplaces and shopping in the city. Could be even cheaper. But I guess you know best. (Different out in the sticks, obviously).
Wow a few places have decent buses...they are the exception not the rule. I live in the southeast 5 miles from heathrow....I tried taking the bus once and after two buses in a row failed to appear had to get a taxi yet keep getting told the south east has a good bus service. You also neglect bus services are mostly hub and spoke....want to go to the town centre no problem need to go across town its usually go to the bus stop catch a bus to the centre then hope the bus from the centre turns up on time to get the bus to where you are going.
Merely want to go from where you are to the town centre often fine.....most people aren't going to the town centre though they are going elsewhere
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
I think the idea we're currently living under an American imperium is a nonsense.
Sure, they are the dominant Western power, and act in their national interest accordingly, which sometimes is reflected in lopsided trade deals and alliances that reflect that, but it's not remotely comparable to what China is doing or wants to do.
In Empire, you only need to plant the flag when threatened by other powers. If everything you want can be achieved without the expenditure of annexing and garrisoning a territory, it's by far the better way of doing it. There are (apparently) 24,000 US military personnel in the UK. They know everything we know, and they appear to have a veto over our foreign policy, and there's more than a suggestion that they also meddle extensively in our domestic politics. All that without planting an American flag.
If they have a veto over our foreign policy, it's a pretty poor one.
They failed to stop us from leaving the EU, or get us to take action in Syria.
The world will always have hegemonic powers. The USA is better than most.
I'm certainly not naïve about the USA, it can be crass, cack-handed and a bull in a china shop, but I regularly thank my lucky stars it's here as the arsenal of the West.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
Show me a path to today's 21st Century world with its international rules-based order, and ascendancy of liberal democracy, that doesn't go through the British Empire please.
The slave trade doesn't count, do you hear, because it happened to BLACK PEOPLE. Phew. Because if it had been whiteys we'd have to face the fact that it was up there with the holocaust as an atrocity, on many measures (% of humanity at the time who were victims, multi generation knock on effects) very arguably worse.
I don't know why you think that slavery was only inflicted upon black people by white people. Chattel slavery has been inflicted upon all ethnic groups by all ethnic groups.
Yes, but how we industrialised the Atlantic triangular trade was fairly unprecedented in the modern world.
Yes, but that shifts the argument. Slavery in history is frequent and universal. When this evil thing interacted with modern forms of trade, transport, industrialisation and more advanced capitalism the amount of evil even increased. So much so that it became obvious that it must go. For the first time it got moral notice in a new way.
The period between that speeding up and abolition was an abomination. But it was still the same old slavery Spartacus knew. The difference (thankfully) was the moral attention.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
Show me a path to today's 21st Century world with its international rules-based order, and ascendancy of liberal democracy, that doesn't go through the British Empire please.
I think you misunderstood my point.
It was a general comment, rather than in direct response to yours.
The WTO didn't exist in the 18th or 19th Century. Therefore, if you wanted to trade, and others were resistant to that trade, you had a choice: not trade at all, or impose it at the point of a sword. Choosing the latter led to a need to defend trading posts against competing powers, and more often than not a need for political alliances within, or control over, their hinterland to bolster their security.
Once all major non-democratic powers had been defeated post-WWII, and the security and stability of global shipping lanes and international rules-based institutions established under allied Western protection, that was no longer necessary.
If that ever falls apart we will very quickly go back to might makes right.
I support balance in our view of the British Empire, especially trying to understand it in the context of the world in which it existed. So we can agree there.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
Show me a path to today's 21st Century world with its international rules-based order, and ascendancy of liberal democracy, that doesn't go through the British Empire please.
The slave trade doesn't count, do you hear, because it happened to BLACK PEOPLE. Phew. Because if it had been whiteys we'd have to face the fact that it was up there with the holocaust as an atrocity, on many measures (% of humanity at the time who were victims, multi generation knock on effects) very arguably worse.
I don't know why you think that slavery was only inflicted upon black people by white people. Chattel slavery has been inflicted upon all ethnic groups by all ethnic groups.
He's not a poster I engage with, but I don't even read him after 6pm which seems to be when he hits the bottle and exhibits his usual personality change.
One of his favourite penchants is to troll other posters with accusations of racism, which is interesting as it's something he's not shy of dabbling in himself from time to time.
Yup, he’s one of two I just ignore and won’t engage with. Crass, vulgar and abusive with no good reason. Yet not unintelligent and someone who I find more common ground with politically than not. I don’t know what he gets from coming here to pick fights. Sad.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
Show me a path to today's 21st Century world with its international rules-based order, and ascendancy of liberal democracy, that doesn't go through the British Empire please.
The slave trade doesn't count, do you hear, because it happened to BLACK PEOPLE. Phew. Because if it had been whiteys we'd have to face the fact that it was up there with the holocaust as an atrocity, on many measures (% of humanity at the time who were victims, multi generation knock on effects) very arguably worse.
Bollocks
Slavery has happened to all kinds of people at all times
White “British” people were enslaved by the Romans, the Vikings, the Barbary slavers and the Ottomans
Arabs have enslaved people from all over for centuries. Black people have enslaved black people. Africans have enslaved Africans. The Romans enslaved everyone. The Chinese enslaved Mongolians and the Mongolians enslaved Chinese. Russians enslaved Russians and called them serfs. The greatest slave trade of all was probably that done throughout Africa by Islam over a thousand years, right into the 20th century, and so on, and so forth
Yes, slavery is probably the single greatest evil of human history, but the idea it was mainly done by white Western Europeans on blacks is silly and wrong
Last country to outlaw slavery was Mauretania in... 1981.
I've travelled in Mauritania. Slavery is illegal but still depressingly common there. Entertaining minefield between Western Sahara and Mauritania at the border.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
Show me a path to today's 21st Century world with its international rules-based order, and ascendancy of liberal democracy, that doesn't go through the British Empire please.
The slave trade doesn't count, do you hear, because it happened to BLACK PEOPLE. Phew. Because if it had been whiteys we'd have to face the fact that it was up there with the holocaust as an atrocity, on many measures (% of humanity at the time who were victims, multi generation knock on effects) very arguably worse.
I don't know why you think that slavery was only inflicted upon black people by white people. Chattel slavery has been inflicted upon all ethnic groups by all ethnic groups.
Yes, but how we industrialised the Atlantic triangular trade was fairly unprecedented in the modern world.
Arab slaving in East Africa was very organised. Big trading centres at places like Zanzibar, for example. But I agree about the systemised triangular trade. Horrific. The other feature of slavery in the. W Indies and USA was the creation of an underclass, a situation which doesn’t seem to exist in Arabia.
Re the Cost of Living, round me the price of petrol has shot up. It is now 20 pence higher than the price it dropped to after Sunak's bung.
Really painful.
Even if the PM is replaced, what does the new PM say or do about this? What would Labour say or do?
A sixth of that increase is directly going to HMRC as VAT as windfall government income, so those who say the government can do nothing are wrong. That money should be recycled back to the poorest third or so, not just the poorest ten per cent. It should not be done by age, or extra given to those who own loads of houses.
The German Federal government are seemingly massively reducing fuel duty and making local public transport effectively free for the summer...
That's the sort of creative thinking Labour should be doing. Really cheap or free public transport (buses especially - trains may not cope with the demand) - provide incentives to get people out of their cars, saving them money and moving towards green targets. Such policies were hugely popular in, for example, Sheffield and London in my youth.
You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money
Charming, as ever. Buses are fabulous in Brighton. Serve all the city with frequent services - every 3-10 minutes on most routes. Much quicker than driving - only nutters (with obvious exceptions for those who really have no choice) try to drive into the centre. Buses are heavily used for access to all workplaces and shopping in the city. Could be even cheaper. But I guess you know best. (Different out in the sticks, obviously).
Wow a few places have decent buses...they are the exception not the rule. I live in the southeast 5 miles from heathrow....I tried taking the bus once and after two buses in a row failed to appear had to get a taxi yet keep getting told the south east has a good bus service. You also neglect bus services are mostly hub and spoke....want to go to the town centre no problem need to go across town its usually go to the bus stop catch a bus to the centre then hope the bus from the centre turns up on time to get the bus to where you are going.
Merely want to go from where you are to the town centre often fine.....most people aren't going to the town centre though they are going elsewhere
You said "You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money"
We've given you two major counterexamples - Edinburgh and Brighton. Why is it they seem to be able to do it properly?
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
Show me a path to today's 21st Century world with its international rules-based order, and ascendancy of liberal democracy, that doesn't go through the British Empire please.
The slave trade doesn't count, do you hear, because it happened to BLACK PEOPLE. Phew. Because if it had been whiteys we'd have to face the fact that it was up there with the holocaust as an atrocity, on many measures (% of humanity at the time who were victims, multi generation knock on effects) very arguably worse.
I don't know why you think that slavery was only inflicted upon black people by white people. Chattel slavery has been inflicted upon all ethnic groups by all ethnic groups.
He's not a poster I engage with, but I don't even read him after 6pm which seems to be when he hits the bottle and exhibits his usual personality change.
One of his favourite penchants is to troll other posters with accusations of racism, which is interesting as it's something he's not shy of dabbling in himself from time to time.
Have you worked out yet that you fly the royal standard if hmq is actually staying in your house, otherwise not? The most gloriously pooterish misconception in pb's history; it would be more appropriate royalism signalling to cram the thing up your arse.
But we'll done having all those labradors. Respect.
Been oppressing Ireland for 800 years thanks for the support…
Good thing the government of Ireland is more nuanced.
an insecure and obsessive wanker
You dish out these terms, and similar, rather too readily imho
OK, wanker
Ok boomer
It doesn't really show you as very intelligent if you have to dismiss people with those terms, but unintelligent and stupid are others you hurl around.
Have you always been this much of an angry person?
Peace x
Swearing is not, and has never been, evidence of stupidity.
Just inarticulacy.
Definitely not. Swearing can be a high art at times. To swear creatively is one of the crown jewels of rhetoric; it's a skill to be admired when you see it done well. A good swear can disable an opponent, disarm and audience, or diffuse a tense moment. To do it well requires memory to know what has gone before, a poetic reflex to know what words complement which others, and the self-confidence to deliver it knowing that you are definitely touching taboos and often escalating an argument. These things don't come easily to all.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
Show me a path to today's 21st Century world with its international rules-based order, and ascendancy of liberal democracy, that doesn't go through the British Empire please.
The slave trade doesn't count, do you hear, because it happened to BLACK PEOPLE. Phew. Because if it had been whiteys we'd have to face the fact that it was up there with the holocaust as an atrocity, on many measures (% of humanity at the time who were victims, multi generation knock on effects) very arguably worse.
Bollocks
Slavery has happened to all kinds of people at all times
White “British” people were enslaved by the Romans, the Vikings, the Barbary slavers and the Ottomans
Arabs have enslaved people from all over for centuries. Black people have enslaved black people. Africans have enslaved Africans. The Romans enslaved everyone. The Chinese enslaved Mongolians and the Mongolians enslaved Chinese. Russians enslaved Russians and called them serfs. The greatest slave trade of all was probably that done throughout Africa by Islam over a thousand years, right into the 20th century, and so on, and so forth
Yes, slavery is probably the single greatest evil of human history, but the idea it was mainly done by white Western Europeans on blacks is silly and wrong
Last country to outlaw slavery was Mauretania in... 1981.
I don't know about other countries, but slavery is still legal in US prisons for convicts. Forced labour is deemed constitutional.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
Show me a path to today's 21st Century world with its international rules-based order, and ascendancy of liberal democracy, that doesn't go through the British Empire please.
The slave trade doesn't count, do you hear, because it happened to BLACK PEOPLE. Phew. Because if it had been whiteys we'd have to face the fact that it was up there with the holocaust as an atrocity, on many measures (% of humanity at the time who were victims, multi generation knock on effects) very arguably worse.
Bollocks
Slavery has happened to all kinds of people at all times
White “British” people were enslaved by the Romans, the Vikings, the Barbary slavers and the Ottomans
Arabs have enslaved people from all over for centuries. Black people have enslaved black people. Africans have enslaved Africans. The Romans enslaved everyone. The Chinese enslaved Mongolians and the Mongolians enslaved Chinese. Russians enslaved Russians and called them serfs. The greatest slave trade of all was probably that done throughout Africa by Islam over a thousand years, right into the 20th century, and so on, and so forth
Yes, slavery is probably the single greatest evil of human history, but the idea it was mainly done by white Western Europeans on blacks is silly and wrong
Last country to outlaw slavery was Mauretania in... 1981.
I've travelled in Mauritania. Slavery is illegal but still depressingly common there. Entertaining minefield between Western Sahara and Mauritania at the border.
What’s the capital like ?
Seen a few YouTube videos and it looks quite interesting.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
Show me a path to today's 21st Century world with its international rules-based order, and ascendancy of liberal democracy, that doesn't go through the British Empire please.
I think you misunderstood my point.
It was a general comment, rather than in direct response to yours.
The WTO didn't exist in the 18th or 19th Century. Therefore, if you wanted to trade, and others were resistant to that trade, you had a choice: not trade at all, or impose it at the point of a sword. Choosing the latter led to a need to defend trading posts against competing powers, and more often than not a need for political alliances within, or control over, their hinterland to bolster their security.
Once all major non-democratic powers had been defeated post-WWII, and the security and stability of global shipping lanes and international rules-based institutions established under allied Western protection, that was no longer necessary.
If that ever falls apart we will very quickly go back to might makes right.
I support balance in our view of the British Empire, especially trying to understand it in the context of the world in which it existed. So we can agree there.
Good to hear, and I doubt we will get such context at the present moment in time.
We are going through an era where everything is interpreted through its convenience for fighting present-day political battles and neuroses; objective history is a poor last.
At the end of this coming week Labour may find that Johnson has survived a VONC, but only just, limping on as a lame duck PM and about to face the voters of two by-elections.
Good times for the Opposition.
At the end of this coming week Labour will find that Johnson has lost a VONC, departing as PM and Labour and the LibDems about to face the voters of two by-elections with their fox shot.....
You have inside knowledge of Tiverton & Honiton to assert that? I ask because you attempted to flame me for making a forecast, although you have gone a lot further with predictions and timescales.
You may be right but I am a little wary.
@MarqueeMark has claimed the Conservative vote is holding up in Tiverton and he may be right though I've often found canvassing claims especially by those who are reporting favourable canvassing for their own party are about as reliable and useful as the Stodge Saturday Patent.
I think he's right. Anecdotally the LibDems are not finding T&H as easy as Labour are finding Wakefield.
As well as the differential in gap to close of course its outgoing rapist nonce versus twit who watched a booby video. Frankly if Labour don't win Wakefield by a country mile given the circumstances of the by election they need shooting.
What if Durham Constabulary help Boris out and sack Starmer on the eve of the by election? That might help h.out.
Andrew Griffith's on Any Questions was comparing the seriousness of Starmer's impending conviction compared to Johnson's acquittal by the Met.
At the end of this coming week Labour may find that Johnson has survived a VONC, but only just, limping on as a lame duck PM and about to face the voters of two by-elections.
Good times for the Opposition.
At the end of this coming week Labour will find that Johnson has lost a VONC, departing as PM and Labour and the LibDems about to face the voters of two by-elections with their fox shot.....
You have inside knowledge of Tiverton & Honiton to assert that? I ask because you attempted to flame me for making a forecast, although you have gone a lot further with predictions and timescales.
You may be right but I am a little wary.
@MarqueeMark has claimed the Conservative vote is holding up in Tiverton and he may be right though I've often found canvassing claims especially by those who are reporting favourable canvassing for their own party are about as reliable and useful as the Stodge Saturday Patent.
It's far more interesting when those canvassing for a party report it's not going well (as those who remember @david_herdson's prescient contribution on the eve of the 2017 election will attest).
Tories to win T and H is possible but not probable. Two reasons: they might anyway, because of the huge swing required and demography. Secondly because by the time of the election there is a X% chance that we will know that Boris is ousted. That chance is maybe about 25%.
if this happens it greatly increases the chance of holding T and H.
Wm Hills 9/2 on Tories to win T and H with Lab to win Wakefield has a bit of value. I don't think that price truly reflects the chance of Boris being ousted soon. (Wakefield goes Labour come what may IMHO, so its a free bit on the bet).
Personally, I think that's dreadful value. Most likely is Tories lose both. But holding Wakefield whilst losing Tiverton is significantly more likely than the reverse just based on recent by-elections. Lab/Con will be attritional, whereas Lib Dems have their tails up and have completely rediscovered their protest vote mojo (for what it's worth).
Being too idle to do the research, can anyone help. Let’s assume Brady announces tomorrow that he has enough letters asking for a VONC in the current Tory Party Leader. I understand that such a vote could be as early as Wednesday but what’s the last day it could be held?
Been oppressing Ireland for 800 years thanks for the support…
Good thing the government of Ireland is more nuanced.
an insecure and obsessive wanker
You dish out these terms, and similar, rather too readily imho
OK, wanker
Ok boomer
It doesn't really show you as very intelligent if you have to dismiss people with those terms, but unintelligent and stupid are others you hurl around.
Have you always been this much of an angry person?
Peace x
Swearing is not, and has never been, evidence of stupidity.
Just inarticulacy.
Definitely not. Swearing can be a high art at times. To swear creatively is one of the crown jewels of rhetoric; it's a skill to be admired when you see it done well. A good swear can disable an opponent, disarm and audience, or diffuse a tense moment. To do it well requires memory to know what has gone before, a poetic reflex to know what words complement which others, and the self-confidence to deliver it knowing that you are definitely touching taboos and often escalating an argument. These things don't come easily to all.
I give you Brian Blessed.
Derek and Clive Live was surely Peak Swearing
'Hello Colin' being a perfect 15 second sketch with a filthy swear pay off
Re the Cost of Living, round me the price of petrol has shot up. It is now 20 pence higher than the price it dropped to after Sunak's bung.
Really painful.
Even if the PM is replaced, what does the new PM say or do about this? What would Labour say or do?
A sixth of that increase is directly going to HMRC as VAT as windfall government income, so those who say the government can do nothing are wrong. That money should be recycled back to the poorest third or so, not just the poorest ten per cent. It should not be done by age, or extra given to those who own loads of houses.
The German Federal government are seemingly massively reducing fuel duty and making local public transport effectively free for the summer...
That's the sort of creative thinking Labour should be doing. Really cheap or free public transport (buses especially - trains may not cope with the demand) - provide incentives to get people out of their cars, saving them money and moving towards green targets. Such policies were hugely popular in, for example, Sheffield and London in my youth.
You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money
Charming, as ever. Buses are fabulous in Brighton. Serve all the city with frequent services - every 3-10 minutes on most routes. Much quicker than driving - only nutters (with obvious exceptions for those who really have no choice) try to drive into the centre. Buses are heavily used for access to all workplaces and shopping in the city. Could be even cheaper. But I guess you know best. (Different out in the sticks, obviously).
Wow a few places have decent buses...they are the exception not the rule. I live in the southeast 5 miles from heathrow....I tried taking the bus once and after two buses in a row failed to appear had to get a taxi yet keep getting told the south east has a good bus service. You also neglect bus services are mostly hub and spoke....want to go to the town centre no problem need to go across town its usually go to the bus stop catch a bus to the centre then hope the bus from the centre turns up on time to get the bus to where you are going.
Merely want to go from where you are to the town centre often fine.....most people aren't going to the town centre though they are going elsewhere
You said "You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money"
We've given you two major counterexamples - Edinburgh and Brighton. Why is it they seem to be able to do it properly?
Well for a start you stating you find the bus useful does not equal all people finding the bus useful. Round my way you see the buses go past...usually with around 5 to 10 passengers. Pretty sure despite you finding the bus useful that if I came up your way the same would apply. Only time I ever see full buses is if I go into london. Not seen a bus even half full anywhere else in britain as yet
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
Show me a path to today's 21st Century world with its international rules-based order, and ascendancy of liberal democracy, that doesn't go through the British Empire please.
The slave trade doesn't count, do you hear, because it happened to BLACK PEOPLE. Phew. Because if it had been whiteys we'd have to face the fact that it was up there with the holocaust as an atrocity, on many measures (% of humanity at the time who were victims, multi generation knock on effects) very arguably worse.
Bollocks
Slavery has happened to all kinds of people at all times
White “British” people were enslaved by the Romans, the Vikings, the Barbary slavers and the Ottomans
Arabs have enslaved people from all over for centuries. Black people have enslaved black people. Africans have enslaved Africans. The Romans enslaved everyone. The Chinese enslaved Mongolians and the Mongolians enslaved Chinese. Russians enslaved Russians and called them serfs. The greatest slave trade of all was probably that done throughout Africa by Islam over a thousand years, right into the 20th century, and so on, and so forth
Yes, slavery is probably the single greatest evil of human history, but the idea it was mainly done by white Western Europeans on blacks is silly and wrong
Just wrong. The point about slavery through much of history was you couldn't afford freeloaders so slavery was the humane alternative to execution for POWs. A self declared Christian nation or empire doing it proactively for profit in the tea and sugar trade, is something else again. You could just as legitimately argue that genocide has been around forever and is therefore now fine
Leon's post calls slavery 'the greatest evil in human history'; he doesn't say it's fine. The only one providing mealy mouthed justification for 'humane' slavery here is you.
Take more rock dust
Yes, this is vaguely reminiscent of that argument. I remember a smilar instance of trumpeting your own infallible expertise on the subject in question when your argument had fallen apart like a leper in a wind tunnel.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
Thanks.
Can imperialism be permanently held back? No. It is protean and shape shifting. Power over others, and being in thrall to others, in small and great forms is part of the fabric of human nature. Currently it is tamed for some by the merits of democracy and also, for us, the benign nature of NATO. I like it that way. It won't last for ever.
I think that puts you firmly in one of my two sketched camps! I am suspicious of your certainty, hope that you're wrong, but suspect you may be right
Neither Whig nor Hegelian history for me. Still less Marxian. Leaving heilsgeschichte on one side my philosophy of history is that we should learn from it, speak softly, and carry a big stick.
Re the Cost of Living, round me the price of petrol has shot up. It is now 20 pence higher than the price it dropped to after Sunak's bung.
Really painful.
Even if the PM is replaced, what does the new PM say or do about this? What would Labour say or do?
A sixth of that increase is directly going to HMRC as VAT as windfall government income, so those who say the government can do nothing are wrong. That money should be recycled back to the poorest third or so, not just the poorest ten per cent. It should not be done by age, or extra given to those who own loads of houses.
The German Federal government are seemingly massively reducing fuel duty and making local public transport effectively free for the summer...
That's the sort of creative thinking Labour should be doing. Really cheap or free public transport (buses especially - trains may not cope with the demand) - provide incentives to get people out of their cars, saving them money and moving towards green targets. Such policies were hugely popular in, for example, Sheffield and London in my youth.
You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money
Charming, as ever. Buses are fabulous in Brighton. Serve all the city with frequent services - every 3-10 minutes on most routes. Much quicker than driving - only nutters (with obvious exceptions for those who really have no choice) try to drive into the centre. Buses are heavily used for access to all workplaces and shopping in the city. Could be even cheaper. But I guess you know best. (Different out in the sticks, obviously).
Wow a few places have decent buses...they are the exception not the rule. I live in the southeast 5 miles from heathrow....I tried taking the bus once and after two buses in a row failed to appear had to get a taxi yet keep getting told the south east has a good bus service. You also neglect bus services are mostly hub and spoke....want to go to the town centre no problem need to go across town its usually go to the bus stop catch a bus to the centre then hope the bus from the centre turns up on time to get the bus to where you are going.
Merely want to go from where you are to the town centre often fine.....most people aren't going to the town centre though they are going elsewhere
You said "You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money"
We've given you two major counterexamples - Edinburgh and Brighton. Why is it they seem to be able to do it properly?
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
Show me a path to today's 21st Century world with its international rules-based order, and ascendancy of liberal democracy, that doesn't go through the British Empire please.
The slave trade doesn't count, do you hear, because it happened to BLACK PEOPLE. Phew. Because if it had been whiteys we'd have to face the fact that it was up there with the holocaust as an atrocity, on many measures (% of humanity at the time who were victims, multi generation knock on effects) very arguably worse.
I don't know why you think that slavery was only inflicted upon black people by white people. Chattel slavery has been inflicted upon all ethnic groups by all ethnic groups.
He's not a poster I engage with, but I don't even read him after 6pm which seems to be when he hits the bottle and exhibits his usual personality change.
One of his favourite penchants is to troll other posters with accusations of racism, which is interesting as it's something he's not shy of dabbling in himself from time to time.
Yup, he’s one of two I just ignore and won’t engage with. Crass, vulgar and abusive with no good reason. Yet not unintelligent and someone who I find more common ground with politically than not. I don’t know what he gets from coming here to pick fights. Sad.
Yes, and you are one of the two most stupid posters here (won't id the other one cos he's quite good natured
Tell us more about the implications of oil "hitting 180", unless it is something you have no understanding of at all but think it makes you sound a high roller kinda guy? That could never be
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
...the idea that people who identify as victims of domestic violence must always be believed. No one feels that they can disagree with it.
Agreed that this is a very imperfect solution, though it could still be claimed that it is the least bad solution, given how intractable the problem is. I don't have enough knowledge of the specifics to know whether this is a reasonable claim, but I think (in agreement with your last paragraph) that any possible solutions will be messy and problematic, but that they might still be worth pursuing. Thanks for the reply.
The moment you make it victims must be believed...you open the door to people claiming to be victims to hit back at people because they fell out. It is absolutely the worst situation.
I think the suggestion is that taking this line is better than immediately assuming something like 'victims are liars'. But I don't agree with either approach. I was just making the point that people always like a simple answer.
No one is suggesting that victims shouldnt be believed enough for an investigation. Where I draw the line is victims should be believed enough to make for a prosecution and guilty verdict on the grounds of someone saying they are a victim
I don't think anyone is saying that no corroborating evidence other than a victims story should be needed for a conviction. If they are then I would be interested to know who..
Re the Cost of Living, round me the price of petrol has shot up. It is now 20 pence higher than the price it dropped to after Sunak's bung.
Really painful.
Even if the PM is replaced, what does the new PM say or do about this? What would Labour say or do?
A sixth of that increase is directly going to HMRC as VAT as windfall government income, so those who say the government can do nothing are wrong. That money should be recycled back to the poorest third or so, not just the poorest ten per cent. It should not be done by age, or extra given to those who own loads of houses.
The German Federal government are seemingly massively reducing fuel duty and making local public transport effectively free for the summer...
That's the sort of creative thinking Labour should be doing. Really cheap or free public transport (buses especially - trains may not cope with the demand) - provide incentives to get people out of their cars, saving them money and moving towards green targets. Such policies were hugely popular in, for example, Sheffield and London in my youth.
You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money
Charming, as ever. Buses are fabulous in Brighton. Serve all the city with frequent services - every 3-10 minutes on most routes. Much quicker than driving - only nutters (with obvious exceptions for those who really have no choice) try to drive into the centre. Buses are heavily used for access to all workplaces and shopping in the city. Could be even cheaper. But I guess you know best. (Different out in the sticks, obviously).
Wow a few places have decent buses...they are the exception not the rule. I live in the southeast 5 miles from heathrow....I tried taking the bus once and after two buses in a row failed to appear had to get a taxi yet keep getting told the south east has a good bus service. You also neglect bus services are mostly hub and spoke....want to go to the town centre no problem need to go across town its usually go to the bus stop catch a bus to the centre then hope the bus from the centre turns up on time to get the bus to where you are going.
Merely want to go from where you are to the town centre often fine.....most people aren't going to the town centre though they are going elsewhere
You said "You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money"
We've given you two major counterexamples - Edinburgh and Brighton. Why is it they seem to be able to do it properly?
Well for a start you stating you find the bus useful does not equal all people finding the bus useful. Round my way you see the buses go past...usually with around 5 to 10 passengers. Pretty sure despite you finding the bus useful that if I came up your way the same would apply. Only time I ever see full buses is if I go into london. Not seen a bus even half full anywhere else in britain as yet
You do not travel much I guess.
Pay a visit to Oxford Rd in Manchester for a road that only has buses that are in normal times rammed and every couple of minutes.
And the reason that buses are not used heavily outside London is mainly due to the de-regulation outside of the capital, something being reversed in Manc and hopefully across the rest of England soon after.
Oh and the trams are also rammed across Manc, they too would be 'free' in Germany.
Re the Cost of Living, round me the price of petrol has shot up. It is now 20 pence higher than the price it dropped to after Sunak's bung.
Really painful.
Even if the PM is replaced, what does the new PM say or do about this? What would Labour say or do?
A sixth of that increase is directly going to HMRC as VAT as windfall government income, so those who say the government can do nothing are wrong. That money should be recycled back to the poorest third or so, not just the poorest ten per cent. It should not be done by age, or extra given to those who own loads of houses.
The German Federal government are seemingly massively reducing fuel duty and making local public transport effectively free for the summer...
That's the sort of creative thinking Labour should be doing. Really cheap or free public transport (buses especially - trains may not cope with the demand) - provide incentives to get people out of their cars, saving them money and moving towards green targets. Such policies were hugely popular in, for example, Sheffield and London in my youth.
You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money
Charming, as ever. Buses are fabulous in Brighton. Serve all the city with frequent services - every 3-10 minutes on most routes. Much quicker than driving - only nutters (with obvious exceptions for those who really have no choice) try to drive into the centre. Buses are heavily used for access to all workplaces and shopping in the city. Could be even cheaper. But I guess you know best. (Different out in the sticks, obviously).
Wow a few places have decent buses...they are the exception not the rule. I live in the southeast 5 miles from heathrow....I tried taking the bus once and after two buses in a row failed to appear had to get a taxi yet keep getting told the south east has a good bus service. You also neglect bus services are mostly hub and spoke....want to go to the town centre no problem need to go across town its usually go to the bus stop catch a bus to the centre then hope the bus from the centre turns up on time to get the bus to where you are going.
Merely want to go from where you are to the town centre often fine.....most people aren't going to the town centre though they are going elsewhere
You said "You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money"
We've given you two major counterexamples - Edinburgh and Brighton. Why is it they seem to be able to do it properly?
In the case of Edinburgh, massive subsidy.
Like London Edinburgh buses are still locally regulated.
Outside it is a shit shambles of a free for all of confused, expensive tickets that are not there to provide a service to the public but maximise profits for the operators.
Re the Cost of Living, round me the price of petrol has shot up. It is now 20 pence higher than the price it dropped to after Sunak's bung.
Really painful.
Even if the PM is replaced, what does the new PM say or do about this? What would Labour say or do?
A sixth of that increase is directly going to HMRC as VAT as windfall government income, so those who say the government can do nothing are wrong. That money should be recycled back to the poorest third or so, not just the poorest ten per cent. It should not be done by age, or extra given to those who own loads of houses.
The German Federal government are seemingly massively reducing fuel duty and making local public transport effectively free for the summer...
That's the sort of creative thinking Labour should be doing. Really cheap or free public transport (buses especially - trains may not cope with the demand) - provide incentives to get people out of their cars, saving them money and moving towards green targets. Such policies were hugely popular in, for example, Sheffield and London in my youth.
You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money
Charming, as ever. Buses are fabulous in Brighton. Serve all the city with frequent services - every 3-10 minutes on most routes. Much quicker than driving - only nutters (with obvious exceptions for those who really have no choice) try to drive into the centre. Buses are heavily used for access to all workplaces and shopping in the city. Could be even cheaper. But I guess you know best. (Different out in the sticks, obviously).
Wow a few places have decent buses...they are the exception not the rule. I live in the southeast 5 miles from heathrow....I tried taking the bus once and after two buses in a row failed to appear had to get a taxi yet keep getting told the south east has a good bus service. You also neglect bus services are mostly hub and spoke....want to go to the town centre no problem need to go across town its usually go to the bus stop catch a bus to the centre then hope the bus from the centre turns up on time to get the bus to where you are going.
Merely want to go from where you are to the town centre often fine.....most people aren't going to the town centre though they are going elsewhere
You said "You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money"
We've given you two major counterexamples - Edinburgh and Brighton. Why is it they seem to be able to do it properly?
Well for a start you stating you find the bus useful does not equal all people finding the bus useful. Round my way you see the buses go past...usually with around 5 to 10 passengers. Pretty sure despite you finding the bus useful that if I came up your way the same would apply. Only time I ever see full buses is if I go into london. Not seen a bus even half full anywhere else in britain as yet
I can tell you that the buses here often are standing room only in the busiest times. And often pretty full at other times of day. Plus the service has to continue, or else youd moan even more. .
Ofd course, if you refuse to use them anyway then you won't be riding in them.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
I think the idea we're currently living under an American imperium is a nonsense.
Sure, they are the dominant Western power, and act in their national interest accordingly, which sometimes is reflected in lopsided trade deals and alliances that reflect that, but it's not remotely comparable to what China is doing or wants to do.
So, you've posted me an article showing me the history of the US intervening in regime change over the last 200 years and that's supposed to be evidence of an American empire we live under today, is it?
We (and they) both were interested in regime change in Iraq, Syria and Libya in just the last 10 years - and, although unofficial, we're both very interested in regime change away from Putin in Russia today.
That's not "empire". It's foreign policy.
Posted in response to "what China is doing", which I took to mean its sour-faced meddling and leveraged of finance and infrastructure to exert control over other countries. My response was intended as a rebuke to anyone who thinks America is innocent of similar.
If you mean something different, then spit it out.
My view on imperialism is that the concept doesn't just wink into being past some magical red line; it's a continuum. America has done a lot on that spectrum, from outright colonisation and extermination, through to benign and charitable interventions to help allies. And literally everything in between. America has an imperial history, such a fact cannot reasonably be disputed. And I think it's totally fair to say we still live in an American world. It is a hegemonic power you don't want to be on the wrong side of. Would I call it "imperium"? No. But such descriptions don't fall away as obvious nonsense either.
I don't accept that caricature but even if I did I'd take American control of finances and infrastructure over Chinese any day of the week, thank you.
America doesn't threaten to grind you up and crush your bones, and then proceed to do exactly that.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
Show me a path to today's 21st Century world with its international rules-based order, and ascendancy of liberal democracy, that doesn't go through the British Empire please.
The slave trade doesn't count, do you hear, because it happened to BLACK PEOPLE. Phew. Because if it had been whiteys we'd have to face the fact that it was up there with the holocaust as an atrocity, on many measures (% of humanity at the time who were victims, multi generation knock on effects) very arguably worse.
I don't know why you think that slavery was only inflicted upon black people by white people. Chattel slavery has been inflicted upon all ethnic groups by all ethnic groups.
Do fuck off, love, I am a professional ancient historian.
At the end of this coming week Labour may find that Johnson has survived a VONC, but only just, limping on as a lame duck PM and about to face the voters of two by-elections.
Good times for the Opposition.
At the end of this coming week Labour will find that Johnson has lost a VONC, departing as PM and Labour and the LibDems about to face the voters of two by-elections with their fox shot.....
You have inside knowledge of Tiverton & Honiton to assert that? I ask because you attempted to flame me for making a forecast, although you have gone a lot further with predictions and timescales.
You may be right but I am a little wary.
@MarqueeMark has claimed the Conservative vote is holding up in Tiverton and he may be right though I've often found canvassing claims especially by those who are reporting favourable canvassing for their own party are about as reliable and useful as the Stodge Saturday Patent.
It's far more interesting when those canvassing for a party report it's not going well (as those who remember @david_herdson's prescient contribution on the eve of the 2017 election will attest).
Tories to win T and H is possible but not probable. Two reasons: they might anyway, because of the huge swing required and demography. Secondly because by the time of the election there is a X% chance that we will know that Boris is ousted. That chance is maybe about 25%.
if this happens it greatly increases the chance of holding T and H.
Wm Hills 9/2 on Tories to win T and H with Lab to win Wakefield has a bit of value. I don't think that price truly reflects the chance of Boris being ousted soon. (Wakefield goes Labour come what may IMHO, so its a free bit on the bet).
Personally, I think that's dreadful value. Most likely is Tories lose both. But holding Wakefield whilst losing Tiverton is significantly more likely than the reverse just based on recent by-elections. Lab/Con will be attritional, whereas Lib Dems have their tails up and have completely rediscovered their protest vote mojo (for what it's worth).
Being too idle to do the research, can anyone help. Let’s assume Brady announces tomorrow that he has enough letters asking for a VONC in the current Tory Party Leader. I understand that such a vote could be as early as Wednesday but what’s the last day it could be held?
You are Boris and I claim my £5 ?
You expect Boris to pay up? I thought you much more aware!
Re the Cost of Living, round me the price of petrol has shot up. It is now 20 pence higher than the price it dropped to after Sunak's bung.
Really painful.
Even if the PM is replaced, what does the new PM say or do about this? What would Labour say or do?
A sixth of that increase is directly going to HMRC as VAT as windfall government income, so those who say the government can do nothing are wrong. That money should be recycled back to the poorest third or so, not just the poorest ten per cent. It should not be done by age, or extra given to those who own loads of houses.
The German Federal government are seemingly massively reducing fuel duty and making local public transport effectively free for the summer...
That's the sort of creative thinking Labour should be doing. Really cheap or free public transport (buses especially - trains may not cope with the demand) - provide incentives to get people out of their cars, saving them money and moving towards green targets. Such policies were hugely popular in, for example, Sheffield and London in my youth.
You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money
Charming, as ever. Buses are fabulous in Brighton. Serve all the city with frequent services - every 3-10 minutes on most routes. Much quicker than driving - only nutters (with obvious exceptions for those who really have no choice) try to drive into the centre. Buses are heavily used for access to all workplaces and shopping in the city. Could be even cheaper. But I guess you know best. (Different out in the sticks, obviously).
Wow a few places have decent buses...they are the exception not the rule. I live in the southeast 5 miles from heathrow....I tried taking the bus once and after two buses in a row failed to appear had to get a taxi yet keep getting told the south east has a good bus service. You also neglect bus services are mostly hub and spoke....want to go to the town centre no problem need to go across town its usually go to the bus stop catch a bus to the centre then hope the bus from the centre turns up on time to get the bus to where you are going.
Merely want to go from where you are to the town centre often fine.....most people aren't going to the town centre though they are going elsewhere
You said "You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money"
We've given you two major counterexamples - Edinburgh and Brighton. Why is it they seem to be able to do it properly?
In the case of Edinburgh, massive subsidy.
Wait til you hear about how much it costs to maintain the roads you drive on.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
Show me a path to today's 21st Century world with its international rules-based order, and ascendancy of liberal democracy, that doesn't go through the British Empire please.
The slave trade doesn't count, do you hear, because it happened to BLACK PEOPLE. Phew. Because if it had been whiteys we'd have to face the fact that it was up there with the holocaust as an atrocity, on many measures (% of humanity at the time who were victims, multi generation knock on effects) very arguably worse.
I don't know why you think that slavery was only inflicted upon black people by white people. Chattel slavery has been inflicted upon all ethnic groups by all ethnic groups.
He's not a poster I engage with, but I don't even read him after 6pm which seems to be when he hits the bottle and exhibits his usual personality change.
One of his favourite penchants is to troll other posters with accusations of racism, which is interesting as it's something he's not shy of dabbling in himself from time to time.
Yup, he’s one of two I just ignore and won’t engage with. Crass, vulgar and abusive with no good reason. Yet not unintelligent and someone who I find more common ground with politically than not. I don’t know what he gets from coming here to pick fights. Sad.
Yes, and you are one of the two most stupid posters here (won't id the other one cos he's quite good natured
Tell us more about the implications of oil "hitting 180", unless it is something you have no understanding of at all but think it makes you sound a high roller kinda guy? That could never be
Re the Cost of Living, round me the price of petrol has shot up. It is now 20 pence higher than the price it dropped to after Sunak's bung.
Really painful.
Even if the PM is replaced, what does the new PM say or do about this? What would Labour say or do?
A sixth of that increase is directly going to HMRC as VAT as windfall government income, so those who say the government can do nothing are wrong. That money should be recycled back to the poorest third or so, not just the poorest ten per cent. It should not be done by age, or extra given to those who own loads of houses.
The German Federal government are seemingly massively reducing fuel duty and making local public transport effectively free for the summer...
That's the sort of creative thinking Labour should be doing. Really cheap or free public transport (buses especially - trains may not cope with the demand) - provide incentives to get people out of their cars, saving them money and moving towards green targets. Such policies were hugely popular in, for example, Sheffield and London in my youth.
You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money
Charming, as ever. Buses are fabulous in Brighton. Serve all the city with frequent services - every 3-10 minutes on most routes. Much quicker than driving - only nutters (with obvious exceptions for those who really have no choice) try to drive into the centre. Buses are heavily used for access to all workplaces and shopping in the city. Could be even cheaper. But I guess you know best. (Different out in the sticks, obviously).
Wow a few places have decent buses...they are the exception not the rule. I live in the southeast 5 miles from heathrow....I tried taking the bus once and after two buses in a row failed to appear had to get a taxi yet keep getting told the south east has a good bus service. You also neglect bus services are mostly hub and spoke....want to go to the town centre no problem need to go across town its usually go to the bus stop catch a bus to the centre then hope the bus from the centre turns up on time to get the bus to where you are going.
Merely want to go from where you are to the town centre often fine.....most people aren't going to the town centre though they are going elsewhere
You said "You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money"
We've given you two major counterexamples - Edinburgh and Brighton. Why is it they seem to be able to do it properly?
Well for a start you stating you find the bus useful does not equal all people finding the bus useful. Round my way you see the buses go past...usually with around 5 to 10 passengers. Pretty sure despite you finding the bus useful that if I came up your way the same would apply. Only time I ever see full buses is if I go into london. Not seen a bus even half full anywhere else in britain as yet
You do not travel much I guess.
Pay a visit to Oxford Rd in Manchester for a road that only has buses that are in normal times rammed and every couple of minutes.
And the reason that buses are not used heavily outside London is mainly due to the de-regulation outside of the capital, something being reversed in Manc and hopefully across the rest of England soon after.
I said anywhere I have been, I admit not been to manchester....said london full buses too....oh what could they have in common they are huge cities maybe? Buses seem to work in huge cities and have lots of passengers though I would still say thats a product of size...if only 5% of people in a given area ever use a bus in london its 400,000 k in manchester 100k in a smaller place with maybe 100k people its 4k a year. There are undoubtedly places buses make sense just saying for 90% of the country they are a waste of time and money
Re the Cost of Living, round me the price of petrol has shot up. It is now 20 pence higher than the price it dropped to after Sunak's bung.
Really painful.
Even if the PM is replaced, what does the new PM say or do about this? What would Labour say or do?
A sixth of that increase is directly going to HMRC as VAT as windfall government income, so those who say the government can do nothing are wrong. That money should be recycled back to the poorest third or so, not just the poorest ten per cent. It should not be done by age, or extra given to those who own loads of houses.
The German Federal government are seemingly massively reducing fuel duty and making local public transport effectively free for the summer...
That's the sort of creative thinking Labour should be doing. Really cheap or free public transport (buses especially - trains may not cope with the demand) - provide incentives to get people out of their cars, saving them money and moving towards green targets. Such policies were hugely popular in, for example, Sheffield and London in my youth.
You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money
Charming, as ever. Buses are fabulous in Brighton. Serve all the city with frequent services - every 3-10 minutes on most routes. Much quicker than driving - only nutters (with obvious exceptions for those who really have no choice) try to drive into the centre. Buses are heavily used for access to all workplaces and shopping in the city. Could be even cheaper. But I guess you know best. (Different out in the sticks, obviously).
Wow a few places have decent buses...they are the exception not the rule. I live in the southeast 5 miles from heathrow....I tried taking the bus once and after two buses in a row failed to appear had to get a taxi yet keep getting told the south east has a good bus service. You also neglect bus services are mostly hub and spoke....want to go to the town centre no problem need to go across town its usually go to the bus stop catch a bus to the centre then hope the bus from the centre turns up on time to get the bus to where you are going.
Merely want to go from where you are to the town centre often fine.....most people aren't going to the town centre though they are going elsewhere
You said "You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money"
We've given you two major counterexamples - Edinburgh and Brighton. Why is it they seem to be able to do it properly?
In the case of Edinburgh, massive subsidy.
Wait til you hear about how much it costs to maintain the roads you drive on.
and the healthcare to look after those affected by air pollution caused by the cars on the roads.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
Show me a path to today's 21st Century world with its international rules-based order, and ascendancy of liberal democracy, that doesn't go through the British Empire please.
The slave trade doesn't count, do you hear, because it happened to BLACK PEOPLE. Phew. Because if it had been whiteys we'd have to face the fact that it was up there with the holocaust as an atrocity, on many measures (% of humanity at the time who were victims, multi generation knock on effects) very arguably worse.
Bollocks
Slavery has happened to all kinds of people at all times
White “British” people were enslaved by the Romans, the Vikings, the Barbary slavers and the Ottomans
Arabs have enslaved people from all over for centuries. Black people have enslaved black people. Africans have enslaved Africans. The Romans enslaved everyone. The Chinese enslaved Mongolians and the Mongolians enslaved Chinese. Russians enslaved Russians and called them serfs. The greatest slave trade of all was probably that done throughout Africa by Islam over a thousand years, right into the 20th century, and so on, and so forth
Yes, slavery is probably the single greatest evil of human history, but the idea it was mainly done by white Western Europeans on blacks is silly and wrong
Last country to outlaw slavery was Mauretania in... 1981.
The Modern Slavery Act 2015 says hello as a reminder that human trafficking still exists, even to this country.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
Show me a path to today's 21st Century world with its international rules-based order, and ascendancy of liberal democracy, that doesn't go through the British Empire please.
The slave trade doesn't count, do you hear, because it happened to BLACK PEOPLE. Phew. Because if it had been whiteys we'd have to face the fact that it was up there with the holocaust as an atrocity, on many measures (% of humanity at the time who were victims, multi generation knock on effects) very arguably worse.
I don't know why you think that slavery was only inflicted upon black people by white people. Chattel slavery has been inflicted upon all ethnic groups by all ethnic groups.
He's not a poster I engage with, but I don't even read him after 6pm which seems to be when he hits the bottle and exhibits his usual personality change.
One of his favourite penchants is to troll other posters with accusations of racism, which is interesting as it's something he's not shy of dabbling in himself from time to time.
Yup, he’s one of two I just ignore and won’t engage with. Crass, vulgar and abusive with no good reason. Yet not unintelligent and someone who I find more common ground with politically than not. I don’t know what he gets from coming here to pick fights. Sad.
Yes, and you are one of the two most stupid posters here (won't id the other one cos he's quite good natured
Tell us more about the implications of oil "hitting 180", unless it is something you have no understanding of at all but think it makes you sound a high roller kinda guy? That could never be
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
Show me a path to today's 21st Century world with its international rules-based order, and ascendancy of liberal democracy, that doesn't go through the British Empire please.
The slave trade doesn't count, do you hear, because it happened to BLACK PEOPLE. Phew. Because if it had been whiteys we'd have to face the fact that it was up there with the holocaust as an atrocity, on many measures (% of humanity at the time who were victims, multi generation knock on effects) very arguably worse.
Bollocks
Slavery has happened to all kinds of people at all times
White “British” people were enslaved by the Romans, the Vikings, the Barbary slavers and the Ottomans
Arabs have enslaved people from all over for centuries. Black people have enslaved black people. Africans have enslaved Africans. The Romans enslaved everyone. The Chinese enslaved Mongolians and the Mongolians enslaved Chinese. Russians enslaved Russians and called them serfs. The greatest slave trade of all was probably that done throughout Africa by Islam over a thousand years, right into the 20th century, and so on, and so forth
Yes, slavery is probably the single greatest evil of human history, but the idea it was mainly done by white Western Europeans on blacks is silly and wrong
Last country to outlaw slavery was Mauretania in... 1981.
I've travelled in Mauritania. Slavery is illegal but still depressingly common there. Entertaining minefield between Western Sahara and Mauritania at the border.
What’s the capital like ?
Seen a few YouTube videos and it looks quite interesting.
I was only there (the capital) overnight, travelled the length down to Senegal. Spent a couple of days at Cap Tafarit which was gorgeous, Nouakchott is fairly grubby, extensive litter issues, i preferred Nouadibhou up by the border. Also went to Rosso by the border with Senegal, a guy in the market was cleaning the street and it was like the Forth Bridge painter job, just surrounded by trash everywhere. Crossed unto Senegal and St Louis.... now that was fun!
Re the Cost of Living, round me the price of petrol has shot up. It is now 20 pence higher than the price it dropped to after Sunak's bung.
Really painful.
Even if the PM is replaced, what does the new PM say or do about this? What would Labour say or do?
A sixth of that increase is directly going to HMRC as VAT as windfall government income, so those who say the government can do nothing are wrong. That money should be recycled back to the poorest third or so, not just the poorest ten per cent. It should not be done by age, or extra given to those who own loads of houses.
The German Federal government are seemingly massively reducing fuel duty and making local public transport effectively free for the summer...
That's the sort of creative thinking Labour should be doing. Really cheap or free public transport (buses especially - trains may not cope with the demand) - provide incentives to get people out of their cars, saving them money and moving towards green targets. Such policies were hugely popular in, for example, Sheffield and London in my youth.
You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money
Charming, as ever. Buses are fabulous in Brighton. Serve all the city with frequent services - every 3-10 minutes on most routes. Much quicker than driving - only nutters (with obvious exceptions for those who really have no choice) try to drive into the centre. Buses are heavily used for access to all workplaces and shopping in the city. Could be even cheaper. But I guess you know best. (Different out in the sticks, obviously).
Wow a few places have decent buses...they are the exception not the rule. I live in the southeast 5 miles from heathrow....I tried taking the bus once and after two buses in a row failed to appear had to get a taxi yet keep getting told the south east has a good bus service. You also neglect bus services are mostly hub and spoke....want to go to the town centre no problem need to go across town its usually go to the bus stop catch a bus to the centre then hope the bus from the centre turns up on time to get the bus to where you are going.
Merely want to go from where you are to the town centre often fine.....most people aren't going to the town centre though they are going elsewhere
You said "You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money"
We've given you two major counterexamples - Edinburgh and Brighton. Why is it they seem to be able to do it properly?
Well for a start you stating you find the bus useful does not equal all people finding the bus useful. Round my way you see the buses go past...usually with around 5 to 10 passengers. Pretty sure despite you finding the bus useful that if I came up your way the same would apply. Only time I ever see full buses is if I go into london. Not seen a bus even half full anywhere else in britain as yet
I can tell you that the buses here often are standing room only in the busiest times. And often pretty full at other times of day. Plus the service has to continue, or else youd moan even more. .
Ofd course, if you refuse to use them anyway then you won't be riding in them.
Edinburgh buses are great. And the drivers are impeccable when it comes to cyclists - always get a friendly wave if I let one out, or a gesture to tell me to scoot on.
But then I realised that those jammy buggers (such as, it would seem, the vast majority of GPs) who only work a 3-day week get to enjoy this every bloody week!
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
Show me a path to today's 21st Century world with its international rules-based order, and ascendancy of liberal democracy, that doesn't go through the British Empire please.
The slave trade doesn't count, do you hear, because it happened to BLACK PEOPLE. Phew. Because if it had been whiteys we'd have to face the fact that it was up there with the holocaust as an atrocity, on many measures (% of humanity at the time who were victims, multi generation knock on effects) very arguably worse.
I don't know why you think that slavery was only inflicted upon black people by white people. Chattel slavery has been inflicted upon all ethnic groups by all ethnic groups.
Do fuck off, love, I am a professional ancient historian.
Fucks your excuse for ignorance then.....
OK, point me to an ancient world parallel to the triangular trade
I don't think people in much of the Middle East, Central America or Afghanistan, among others, would regard the USA's foreign policy over the last 80 years as particularly benign. Far from it.
Re the Cost of Living, round me the price of petrol has shot up. It is now 20 pence higher than the price it dropped to after Sunak's bung.
Really painful.
Even if the PM is replaced, what does the new PM say or do about this? What would Labour say or do?
A sixth of that increase is directly going to HMRC as VAT as windfall government income, so those who say the government can do nothing are wrong. That money should be recycled back to the poorest third or so, not just the poorest ten per cent. It should not be done by age, or extra given to those who own loads of houses.
The German Federal government are seemingly massively reducing fuel duty and making local public transport effectively free for the summer...
That's the sort of creative thinking Labour should be doing. Really cheap or free public transport (buses especially - trains may not cope with the demand) - provide incentives to get people out of their cars, saving them money and moving towards green targets. Such policies were hugely popular in, for example, Sheffield and London in my youth.
You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money
Charming, as ever. Buses are fabulous in Brighton. Serve all the city with frequent services - every 3-10 minutes on most routes. Much quicker than driving - only nutters (with obvious exceptions for those who really have no choice) try to drive into the centre. Buses are heavily used for access to all workplaces and shopping in the city. Could be even cheaper. But I guess you know best. (Different out in the sticks, obviously).
Wow a few places have decent buses...they are the exception not the rule. I live in the southeast 5 miles from heathrow....I tried taking the bus once and after two buses in a row failed to appear had to get a taxi yet keep getting told the south east has a good bus service. You also neglect bus services are mostly hub and spoke....want to go to the town centre no problem need to go across town its usually go to the bus stop catch a bus to the centre then hope the bus from the centre turns up on time to get the bus to where you are going.
Merely want to go from where you are to the town centre often fine.....most people aren't going to the town centre though they are going elsewhere
You said "You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money"
We've given you two major counterexamples - Edinburgh and Brighton. Why is it they seem to be able to do it properly?
Well for a start you stating you find the bus useful does not equal all people finding the bus useful. Round my way you see the buses go past...usually with around 5 to 10 passengers. Pretty sure despite you finding the bus useful that if I came up your way the same would apply. Only time I ever see full buses is if I go into london. Not seen a bus even half full anywhere else in britain as yet
I can tell you that the buses here often are standing room only in the busiest times. And often pretty full at other times of day. Plus the service has to continue, or else youd moan even more. .
Ofd course, if you refuse to use them anyway then you won't be riding in them.
I don't use them because they are expensive , slow and unreliable. I don't have a car so mostly use public transport ie trainsor taxi's. I would not even consider us as an option as its too slow too expensive and too unreliable
Re the Cost of Living, round me the price of petrol has shot up. It is now 20 pence higher than the price it dropped to after Sunak's bung.
Really painful.
Even if the PM is replaced, what does the new PM say or do about this? What would Labour say or do?
A sixth of that increase is directly going to HMRC as VAT as windfall government income, so those who say the government can do nothing are wrong. That money should be recycled back to the poorest third or so, not just the poorest ten per cent. It should not be done by age, or extra given to those who own loads of houses.
The German Federal government are seemingly massively reducing fuel duty and making local public transport effectively free for the summer...
That's the sort of creative thinking Labour should be doing. Really cheap or free public transport (buses especially - trains may not cope with the demand) - provide incentives to get people out of their cars, saving them money and moving towards green targets. Such policies were hugely popular in, for example, Sheffield and London in my youth.
You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money
Charming, as ever. Buses are fabulous in Brighton. Serve all the city with frequent services - every 3-10 minutes on most routes. Much quicker than driving - only nutters (with obvious exceptions for those who really have no choice) try to drive into the centre. Buses are heavily used for access to all workplaces and shopping in the city. Could be even cheaper. But I guess you know best. (Different out in the sticks, obviously).
Wow a few places have decent buses...they are the exception not the rule. I live in the southeast 5 miles from heathrow....I tried taking the bus once and after two buses in a row failed to appear had to get a taxi yet keep getting told the south east has a good bus service. You also neglect bus services are mostly hub and spoke....want to go to the town centre no problem need to go across town its usually go to the bus stop catch a bus to the centre then hope the bus from the centre turns up on time to get the bus to where you are going.
Merely want to go from where you are to the town centre often fine.....most people aren't going to the town centre though they are going elsewhere
You said "You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money"
We've given you two major counterexamples - Edinburgh and Brighton. Why is it they seem to be able to do it properly?
Well for a start you stating you find the bus useful does not equal all people finding the bus useful. Round my way you see the buses go past...usually with around 5 to 10 passengers. Pretty sure despite you finding the bus useful that if I came up your way the same would apply. Only time I ever see full buses is if I go into london. Not seen a bus even half full anywhere else in britain as yet
You should get out more. My bus is often full by the time it gets to the City Centre. It is empty when it sets off, and in an intermediate state along the way. How full it is depends on where you observe it on the route.
The problem for me using it is that there is only one per hour, and the last one from the city is at 1830, if I miss that, then there is another service part of the way, then I have a 2 mile walk. Incidentally my Trust runs a bus between the three hospital sites, about 2-3 miles apart, open to any passenger, but free with Staff ID. It is nearly always full.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
Show me a path to today's 21st Century world with its international rules-based order, and ascendancy of liberal democracy, that doesn't go through the British Empire please.
The slave trade doesn't count, do you hear, because it happened to BLACK PEOPLE. Phew. Because if it had been whiteys we'd have to face the fact that it was up there with the holocaust as an atrocity, on many measures (% of humanity at the time who were victims, multi generation knock on effects) very arguably worse.
I don't know why you think that slavery was only inflicted upon black people by white people. Chattel slavery has been inflicted upon all ethnic groups by all ethnic groups.
He's not a poster I engage with, but I don't even read him after 6pm which seems to be when he hits the bottle and exhibits his usual personality change.
One of his favourite penchants is to troll other posters with accusations of racism, which is interesting as it's something he's not shy of dabbling in himself from time to time.
Yup, he’s one of two I just ignore and won’t engage with. Crass, vulgar and abusive with no good reason. Yet not unintelligent and someone who I find more common ground with politically than not. I don’t know what he gets from coming here to pick fights. Sad.
Yes, and you are one of the two most stupid posters here (won't id the other one cos he's quite good natured
Tell us more about the implications of oil "hitting 180", unless it is something you have no understanding of at all but think it makes you sound a high roller kinda guy? That could never be
You have the floor
Take more water with it.
And the oil price....?
Oil and water don’t mix. As I have said I don’t engage with you. Now piss off.
Re the Cost of Living, round me the price of petrol has shot up. It is now 20 pence higher than the price it dropped to after Sunak's bung.
Really painful.
Even if the PM is replaced, what does the new PM say or do about this? What would Labour say or do?
A sixth of that increase is directly going to HMRC as VAT as windfall government income, so those who say the government can do nothing are wrong. That money should be recycled back to the poorest third or so, not just the poorest ten per cent. It should not be done by age, or extra given to those who own loads of houses.
The German Federal government are seemingly massively reducing fuel duty and making local public transport effectively free for the summer...
That's the sort of creative thinking Labour should be doing. Really cheap or free public transport (buses especially - trains may not cope with the demand) - provide incentives to get people out of their cars, saving them money and moving towards green targets. Such policies were hugely popular in, for example, Sheffield and London in my youth.
You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money
Charming, as ever. Buses are fabulous in Brighton. Serve all the city with frequent services - every 3-10 minutes on most routes. Much quicker than driving - only nutters (with obvious exceptions for those who really have no choice) try to drive into the centre. Buses are heavily used for access to all workplaces and shopping in the city. Could be even cheaper. But I guess you know best. (Different out in the sticks, obviously).
Wow a few places have decent buses...they are the exception not the rule. I live in the southeast 5 miles from heathrow....I tried taking the bus once and after two buses in a row failed to appear had to get a taxi yet keep getting told the south east has a good bus service. You also neglect bus services are mostly hub and spoke....want to go to the town centre no problem need to go across town its usually go to the bus stop catch a bus to the centre then hope the bus from the centre turns up on time to get the bus to where you are going.
Merely want to go from where you are to the town centre often fine.....most people aren't going to the town centre though they are going elsewhere
You said "You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money"
We've given you two major counterexamples - Edinburgh and Brighton. Why is it they seem to be able to do it properly?
In the case of Edinburgh, massive subsidy.
Nonsense: it used to be highly profitable before the covid downturn.
At the end of this coming week Labour may find that Johnson has survived a VONC, but only just, limping on as a lame duck PM and about to face the voters of two by-elections.
Good times for the Opposition.
At the end of this coming week Labour will find that Johnson has lost a VONC, departing as PM and Labour and the LibDems about to face the voters of two by-elections with their fox shot.....
You have inside knowledge of Tiverton & Honiton to assert that? I ask because you attempted to flame me for making a forecast, although you have gone a lot further with predictions and timescales.
You may be right but I am a little wary.
@MarqueeMark has claimed the Conservative vote is holding up in Tiverton and he may be right though I've often found canvassing claims especially by those who are reporting favourable canvassing for their own party are about as reliable and useful as the Stodge Saturday Patent.
I think he's right. Anecdotally the LibDems are not finding T&H as easy as Labour are finding Wakefield.
As well as the differential in gap to close of course its outgoing rapist nonce versus twit who watched a booby video. Frankly if Labour don't win Wakefield by a country mile given the circumstances of the by election they need shooting.
What if Durham Constabulary help Boris out and sack Starmer on the eve of the by election? That might help h.out.
Andrew Griffith's on Any Questions was comparing the seriousness of Starmer's impending conviction compared to Johnson's acquittal by the Met.
The comparison on party and beergate is pretty straightforward - both absolute arseholes, Boris more frequently and with a larger supporting cast
I don't think people in much of the Middle East, Central America or Afghanistan, among others, would regard the USA's foreign policy over the last 80 years as particularly benign. Far from it.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
I think the idea we're currently living under an American imperium is a nonsense.
Sure, they are the dominant Western power, and act in their national interest accordingly, which sometimes is reflected in lopsided trade deals and alliances that reflect that, but it's not remotely comparable to what China is doing or wants to do.
So, you've posted me an article showing me the history of the US intervening in regime change over the last 200 years and that's supposed to be evidence of an American empire we live under today, is it?
We (and they) both were interested in regime change in Iraq, Syria and Libya in just the last 10 years - and, although unofficial, we're both very interested in regime change away from Putin in Russia today.
That's not "empire". It's foreign policy.
Posted in response to "what China is doing", which I took to mean its sour-faced meddling and leveraged of finance and infrastructure to exert control over other countries. My response was intended as a rebuke to anyone who thinks America is innocent of similar.
If you mean something different, then spit it out.
My view on imperialism is that the concept doesn't just wink into being past some magical red line; it's a continuum. America has done a lot on that spectrum, from outright colonisation and extermination, through to benign and charitable interventions to help allies. And literally everything in between. America has an imperial history, such a fact cannot reasonably be disputed. And I think it's totally fair to say we still live in an American world. It is a hegemonic power you don't want to be on the wrong side of. Would I call it "imperium"? No. But such descriptions don't fall away as obvious nonsense either.
I don't accept that caricature but even if I did I'd take American control of finances and infrastructure over Chinese any day of the week, thank you.
America doesn't threaten to grind you up and crush your bones, and then proceed to do exactly that.
Been oppressing Ireland for 800 years thanks for the support…
Good thing the government of Ireland is more nuanced.
an insecure and obsessive wanker
You dish out these terms, and similar, rather too readily imho
OK, wanker
Ok boomer
It doesn't really show you as very intelligent if you have to dismiss people with those terms, but unintelligent and stupid are others you hurl around.
Have you always been this much of an angry person?
Peace x
Swearing is not, and has never been, evidence of stupidity.
Just inarticulacy.
Definitely not. Swearing can be a high art at times. To swear creatively is one of the crown jewels of rhetoric; it's a skill to be admired when you see it done well. A good swear can disable an opponent, disarm and audience, or diffuse a tense moment. To do it well requires memory to know what has gone before, a poetic reflex to know what words complement which others, and the self-confidence to deliver it knowing that you are definitely touching taboos and often escalating an argument. These things don't come easily to all.
Re the Cost of Living, round me the price of petrol has shot up. It is now 20 pence higher than the price it dropped to after Sunak's bung.
Really painful.
Even if the PM is replaced, what does the new PM say or do about this? What would Labour say or do?
A sixth of that increase is directly going to HMRC as VAT as windfall government income, so those who say the government can do nothing are wrong. That money should be recycled back to the poorest third or so, not just the poorest ten per cent. It should not be done by age, or extra given to those who own loads of houses.
The German Federal government are seemingly massively reducing fuel duty and making local public transport effectively free for the summer...
That's the sort of creative thinking Labour should be doing. Really cheap or free public transport (buses especially - trains may not cope with the demand) - provide incentives to get people out of their cars, saving them money and moving towards green targets. Such policies were hugely popular in, for example, Sheffield and London in my youth.
You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money
Charming, as ever. Buses are fabulous in Brighton. Serve all the city with frequent services - every 3-10 minutes on most routes. Much quicker than driving - only nutters (with obvious exceptions for those who really have no choice) try to drive into the centre. Buses are heavily used for access to all workplaces and shopping in the city. Could be even cheaper. But I guess you know best. (Different out in the sticks, obviously).
Wow a few places have decent buses...they are the exception not the rule. I live in the southeast 5 miles from heathrow....I tried taking the bus once and after two buses in a row failed to appear had to get a taxi yet keep getting told the south east has a good bus service. You also neglect bus services are mostly hub and spoke....want to go to the town centre no problem need to go across town its usually go to the bus stop catch a bus to the centre then hope the bus from the centre turns up on time to get the bus to where you are going.
Merely want to go from where you are to the town centre often fine.....most people aren't going to the town centre though they are going elsewhere
You said "You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money"
We've given you two major counterexamples - Edinburgh and Brighton. Why is it they seem to be able to do it properly?
Well for a start you stating you find the bus useful does not equal all people finding the bus useful. Round my way you see the buses go past...usually with around 5 to 10 passengers. Pretty sure despite you finding the bus useful that if I came up your way the same would apply. Only time I ever see full buses is if I go into london. Not seen a bus even half full anywhere else in britain as yet
You should get out more. My bus is often full by the time it gets to the City Centre. It is empty when it sets off, and in an intermediate state along the way. How full it is depends on where you observe it on the route.
The problem for me using it is that there is only one per hour, and the last one from the city is at 1830, if I miss that, then there is another service part of the way, then I have a 2 mile walk. Incidentally my Trust runs a bus between the three hospital sites, about 2-3 miles apart, open to any passenger, but free with Staff ID. It is nearly always full.
Again you live in leicester its quite a big place. I havent said buses dont work there. I just don't think they work in small places of 150k or less. Ie most towns in the country. People keep telling me to travel more as there bus is full but they always come from huge places. Think its them needs to travel more. Even you have said last one is at 18:30....well good bye to going out for a meal with your work colleagues then if you want to get a bus....inconvenient as I said
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
Show me a path to today's 21st Century world with its international rules-based order, and ascendancy of liberal democracy, that doesn't go through the British Empire please.
The slave trade doesn't count, do you hear, because it happened to BLACK PEOPLE. Phew. Because if it had been whiteys we'd have to face the fact that it was up there with the holocaust as an atrocity, on many measures (% of humanity at the time who were victims, multi generation knock on effects) very arguably worse.
I don't know why you think that slavery was only inflicted upon black people by white people. Chattel slavery has been inflicted upon all ethnic groups by all ethnic groups.
Do fuck off, love, I am a professional ancient historian.
Fucks your excuse for ignorance then.....
OK, point me to an ancient world parallel to the triangular trade
Go on
In the Roman mines in Wales, slaves had a similarly short working life, but it wasn't commercialised as a three legged trade was it?
Re the Cost of Living, round me the price of petrol has shot up. It is now 20 pence higher than the price it dropped to after Sunak's bung.
Really painful.
Even if the PM is replaced, what does the new PM say or do about this? What would Labour say or do?
A sixth of that increase is directly going to HMRC as VAT as windfall government income, so those who say the government can do nothing are wrong. That money should be recycled back to the poorest third or so, not just the poorest ten per cent. It should not be done by age, or extra given to those who own loads of houses.
The German Federal government are seemingly massively reducing fuel duty and making local public transport effectively free for the summer...
That's the sort of creative thinking Labour should be doing. Really cheap or free public transport (buses especially - trains may not cope with the demand) - provide incentives to get people out of their cars, saving them money and moving towards green targets. Such policies were hugely popular in, for example, Sheffield and London in my youth.
You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money
Charming, as ever. Buses are fabulous in Brighton. Serve all the city with frequent services - every 3-10 minutes on most routes. Much quicker than driving - only nutters (with obvious exceptions for those who really have no choice) try to drive into the centre. Buses are heavily used for access to all workplaces and shopping in the city. Could be even cheaper. But I guess you know best. (Different out in the sticks, obviously).
Wow a few places have decent buses...they are the exception not the rule. I live in the southeast 5 miles from heathrow....I tried taking the bus once and after two buses in a row failed to appear had to get a taxi yet keep getting told the south east has a good bus service. You also neglect bus services are mostly hub and spoke....want to go to the town centre no problem need to go across town its usually go to the bus stop catch a bus to the centre then hope the bus from the centre turns up on time to get the bus to where you are going.
Merely want to go from where you are to the town centre often fine.....most people aren't going to the town centre though they are going elsewhere
You said "You can make buses free people still wont use them because they take too long and dont go door to door and rarely even where people want to go. Waste of fucking time and money"
We've given you two major counterexamples - Edinburgh and Brighton. Why is it they seem to be able to do it properly?
Well for a start you stating you find the bus useful does not equal all people finding the bus useful. Round my way you see the buses go past...usually with around 5 to 10 passengers. Pretty sure despite you finding the bus useful that if I came up your way the same would apply. Only time I ever see full buses is if I go into london. Not seen a bus even half full anywhere else in britain as yet
I can tell you that the buses here often are standing room only in the busiest times. And often pretty full at other times of day. Plus the service has to continue, or else youd moan even more. .
Ofd course, if you refuse to use them anyway then you won't be riding in them.
I don't use them because they are expensive , slow and unreliable. I don't have a car so mostly use public transport ie trainsor taxi's. I would not even consider us as an option as its too slow too expensive and too unreliable
I don't have a car. Unfortunately, here, we don't have trains either. Well we do. The line goes slap through the middle of town. But there are no stations. So fat lot of use they are.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
Show me a path to today's 21st Century world with its international rules-based order, and ascendancy of liberal democracy, that doesn't go through the British Empire please.
The slave trade doesn't count, do you hear, because it happened to BLACK PEOPLE. Phew. Because if it had been whiteys we'd have to face the fact that it was up there with the holocaust as an atrocity, on many measures (% of humanity at the time who were victims, multi generation knock on effects) very arguably worse.
Bollocks
Slavery has happened to all kinds of people at all times
White “British” people were enslaved by the Romans, the Vikings, the Barbary slavers and the Ottomans
Arabs have enslaved people from all over for centuries. Black people have enslaved black people. Africans have enslaved Africans. The Romans enslaved everyone. The Chinese enslaved Mongolians and the Mongolians enslaved Chinese. Russians enslaved Russians and called them serfs. The greatest slave trade of all was probably that done throughout Africa by Islam over a thousand years, right into the 20th century, and so on, and so forth
Yes, slavery is probably the single greatest evil of human history, but the idea it was mainly done by white Western Europeans on blacks is silly and wrong
Last country to outlaw slavery was Mauretania in... 1981.
I've travelled in Mauritania. Slavery is illegal but still depressingly common there. Entertaining minefield between Western Sahara and Mauritania at the border.
What’s the capital like ?
Seen a few YouTube videos and it looks quite interesting.
I was only there (the capital) overnight, travelled the length down to Senegal. Spent a couple of days at Cap Tafarit which was gorgeous, Nouakchott is fairly grubby, extensive litter issues, i preferred Nouadibhou up by the border. Also went to Rosso by the border with Senegal, a guy in the market was cleaning the street and it was like the Forth Bridge painter job, just surrounded by trash everywhere. Crossed unto Senegal and St Louis.... now that was fun!
It seemed nice as it was on the coast and the videos of it looked okay.
Mind you so did a few other African capitals. Harare always seems nice.
"I‘m getting people coming up to me and greeting me with that smile and the tilt of the head that’s usually reserved when your labrador puppy has just been run over."
Many Tories believe the threshold is reached or close to being reached. But there is believed to be some traffic in both directions. Some newer MPs are said to be nervous of acting too soon and are considering pushing to delay a confidence vote until after 23 June.
If you think he should be gone what does a delay gain? If you don't think he should be gone are the by-elections really going to weaken him any further in your eyes?
If they do what him gone, consider what he wants right now - and although his side are openly confident of winning any vote, they are also trying very hard to prevent one occurring. So by not acting you are doing what he wants.
Lets hope we wake to a Graham Brady presser announcement and the oafish fat turd in number 10 does a runner before hes booted. Then we can start looking at whats really going on in the polls/public opinion and wait for Durham Police to sack Beer boy and the Ginger nut.
Were those the biscuits they were eating at beergate - my favourites and my grandson's
Rayner dunks hers in Vindaloo and eats them whole.
Harmony has broken out with all the encomia for Edinburgh busses. Especially from those with passes, who otherwise disagree vehemently on trivial issues like Boris, Europe and Sindy.
OT: (I value reading the comments on PB because most of you are of a different political hue than me. I'm interested in debating what I write below, particularly if you disagree with it. If you're not interested and frustrated that it's off-topic and non-betting-related, apologies.)
I've just finished Natasha Brown's excellent short novel Assembly - thoroughly recommended.
My reading of Brown's novel is that it is about the near impossibility of forming (assembling) a coherent identity as a young black woman. To my mind it is very persuasive - the book is very short but laced with examples where the protagonist has to self-censor her thoughts and views in order to assimilate into a culture that has been largely created by white men and that resists discussing a significant historical aspect of its creation (imperialism).
I recognise that the process of assimilation into a shared culture requires everyone to self-censor somewhat, but I am persuaded by the argument that, at the intersection of specific groups (women and black people, for example) the need for self-censorship is particularly acute, and therefore damaging to one's social- and self-identity.
I'm really interested in the responses of those of you who would describe this thinking as woke and so dismiss it. Putting aside the disingenuous elements of the usage of woke (i.e. encouraging a culture war), for those of you who write on here about wokeness as an ideology, what is it that you disagree with in the above? And what reaction do you think individuals, society and government in UK (and elsewhere) should have to such strong feelings of alienation and self-censorship amongst a a significant proportion of that society's members?
Don't especially disagree with any of this, which is partly true of any individual in a dissonant or liminal situation. Reflect on what a proportion of interesting and challenging literature (and other achievements) of the last 100 years is done by people who are exiles, refugees, dislocated, minority etc.
Self-censorship is normal to a civilized community, and universal. However taken beyond a certain point it is damaging rather than essential. But in our world is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored.
But one neglected issue is this. A friend of mine's late wife was a member of a particular marginal identity in India who regarded the Indian state as it now is as the occupying imperial power. This is one personal example of a global fact. Imperial history is the norm not the exception, at virtually all times and places. Reflect upon the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, the history of Ukraine, China etc, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russians etc.
The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone. A think we need an agenda of more genuine diversity and inclusion, but hesitate to think we shall get one.
"...is it not standing up in favour of imperialism that is more marginalised and self-censored." Yes, imo. However, as a generalisation I doubt that the person who is self-censoring in this way is needing to do so as broadly or as often as many young black women. What I took from the book is how a constant need to assimilate wears one down. (I do think there are parallels with those who saw their communities changing around them in the last 40 years and saw no choice but to assimilate into the new orthodoxy of globalisation, and were similarly worn down).
"The odd time is ours when the imperial past is questioned and critically appraised and assumed to be both bad and gone." Completely agree, and with your previous paragraph. To me the interesting question at the heart of it (and imo one of the genuine dividing lines between progressives and conservatives), is whether we are capable of genuine social progress globally, such that imperialism can be beaten back permanently, or whether we are just in a brief period of more benign (American-led) imperialism that we should hang on to for as long as we can before we get the Chinese version, that is likely less benign.
The notion that American imperialism is more benign than the British version is an 'interesting' one.
Show me a path to today's 21st Century world with its international rules-based order, and ascendancy of liberal democracy, that doesn't go through the British Empire please.
The slave trade doesn't count, do you hear, because it happened to BLACK PEOPLE. Phew. Because if it had been whiteys we'd have to face the fact that it was up there with the holocaust as an atrocity, on many measures (% of humanity at the time who were victims, multi generation knock on effects) very arguably worse.
I don't know why you think that slavery was only inflicted upon black people by white people. Chattel slavery has been inflicted upon all ethnic groups by all ethnic groups.
Do fuck off, love, I am a professional ancient historian.
Fucks your excuse for ignorance then.....
OK, point me to an ancient world parallel to the triangular trade
Go on
In the Roman mines in Wales, slaves had a similarly short working life, but it wasn't commercialised as a three legged trade was it?
Comments
They failed to stop us from leaving the EU, or get us to take action in Syria.
The car's just nuisance if you live in the Edinburgh suburbs and want to commute in. And what you going to do? Park on Prince's Street? Tell me about door-to-door if you're going to Boots or the Waverley Market. Lucky to parked within a mile.
Slavery has happened to all kinds of people at all times
White “British” people were enslaved by the Romans, the Vikings, the Barbary slavers and the Ottomans
Arabs have enslaved people from all over for centuries. Black people have enslaved black people. Africans have enslaved Africans. The Romans enslaved everyone. The Chinese enslaved Mongolians and the Mongolians enslaved Chinese. Russians enslaved Russians and called them serfs. The greatest slave trade of all was probably that done throughout Africa by Islam over a thousand years, right into the 20th century, and so on, and so forth
Yes, slavery is probably the single greatest evil of human history, but the idea it was mainly done by white Western Europeans on blacks is silly and wrong
What is more likely is a situation with multiple powers, and I don't think that Britain has anything to fear from that. As a matter of fact, 'balance of powers' was the overriding aim of British foreign policy for many years.
I'm not denying its a problem. I'm saying it might be better than the current situation.
Then we can start looking at whats really going on in the polls/public opinion and wait for Durham Police to sack Beer boy and the Ginger nut.
Can imperialism be permanently held back? No. It is protean and shape shifting. Power over others, and being in thrall to others, in small and great forms is part of the fabric of human nature. Currently it is tamed for some by the merits of democracy and also, for us, the benign nature of NATO. I like it that way. It won't last for ever.
Ditching Johnson will still be the right thing to do, even if it's just turning a likely rout into a defeat. But to admit to oneself that it's just about cutting losses... Not an easy step to take emotionally.
The WTO didn't exist in the 18th or 19th Century. Therefore, if you wanted to trade, and others were resistant to that trade, you had a choice: not trade at all, or impose it at the point of a sword. Choosing the latter led to a need to defend trading posts against competing powers, and more often than not a need for political alliances within, or control over, their hinterland to bolster their security.
Once all major non-democratic powers had been defeated post-WWII, and the security and stability of global shipping lanes and international rules-based institutions established under allied Western protection, that was no longer necessary.
If that ever falls apart we will very quickly go back to might makes right.
Frankly if Labour don't win Wakefield by a country mile given the circumstances of the by election they need shooting.
Lets not forget here believing people because they say they are victims automatically means taking liberty from others
If you mean something different, then spit it out.
My view on imperialism is that the concept doesn't just wink into being past some magical red line; it's a continuum. America has done a lot on that spectrum, from outright colonisation and extermination, through to benign and charitable interventions to help allies. And literally everything in between.
America has an imperial history, such a fact cannot reasonably be disputed. And I think it's totally fair to say we still live in an American world. It is a hegemonic power you don't want to be on the wrong side of.
Would I call it "imperium"? No. But such descriptions don't fall away as obvious nonsense either.
One of his favourite penchants is to troll other posters with accusations of racism, which is interesting as it's something he's not shy of dabbling in himself from time to time.
Looks like a new form of youthful disorder in Italian cities being exported to resort towns
Rayner dunks hers in Vindaloo and eats them whole.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct37lw
Can a book change a young woman’s life? Kim Chakanetsa talks to two women in the publishing world about the importance of writing stories that inspire and empower girls.
Nnedi Okorafor is an award-winning Nigerian-American writer of fantasy and science fiction for both children and adults. Her books have strong female leads and draw inspiration from her Nigerian roots. Nnedi has also written comics for Marvel: she was the first woman to write the character of T'challa, the Black Panther, and she wrote a series about his tech loving sister, Shuri. She is a recipient of the World Fantasy, Hugo and Nebula Awards.
Mel Mazman is the chief product officer at Rebel Girls, a franchise publishing books and digital content aimed at empowering young women. The company started in 2016, with a crowdfunding campaign for Good Night Stories for Rebel Girls, a book featuring the stories of 100 inspirational women. Since then, they sold 7.5 million books in over 100 countries. Mel shares her insights on how the publishing industry is changing to cater for the needs and interests of younger generations of readers.
Produced by Alice Gioia.
Merely want to go from where you are to the town centre often fine.....most people aren't going to the town centre though they are going elsewhere
We'd soon feel it if it wasn't.
The period between that speeding up and abolition was an abomination. But it was still the same old slavery Spartacus knew. The difference (thankfully) was the moral attention.
Slavery is illegal but still depressingly common there. Entertaining minefield between Western Sahara and Mauritania at the border.
But I agree about the systemised triangular trade. Horrific.
The other feature of slavery in the. W Indies and USA was the creation of an underclass, a situation which doesn’t seem to exist in Arabia.
We've given you two major counterexamples - Edinburgh and Brighton. Why is it they seem to be able to do it properly?
But we'll done having all those labradors. Respect.
Seen a few YouTube videos and it looks quite interesting.
We are going through an era where everything is interpreted through its convenience for fighting present-day political battles and neuroses; objective history is a poor last.
Andrew Griffith's on Any Questions was comparing the seriousness of Starmer's impending conviction compared to Johnson's acquittal by the Met.
Tell us more about the implications of oil "hitting 180", unless it is something you have no understanding of at all but think it makes you sound a high roller kinda guy? That could never be
You have the floor
Pay a visit to Oxford Rd in Manchester for a road that only has buses that are in normal times rammed and every couple of minutes.
And the reason that buses are not used heavily outside London is mainly due to the de-regulation outside of the capital, something being reversed in Manc and hopefully across the rest of England soon after.
Oh and the trams are also rammed across Manc, they too would be 'free' in Germany.
https://twitter.com/themendozawoman/status/1533399384372699142?s=21&t=mtT-4WQBJzZbn7_heM6-wA
A few fanciful claims (pro apartheid !!!!) but I doubt this will trouble labour too much.
Outside it is a shit shambles of a free for all of confused, expensive tickets that are not there to provide a service to the public but maximise profits for the operators.
Ofd course, if you refuse to use them anyway then you won't be riding in them.
America doesn't threaten to grind you up and crush your bones, and then proceed to do exactly that.
@IshmaelZ - maybe sober up, old chap, you’re usually a sharp and intelligent commenter. Don’t do yourself a mischief and a disservice
G’night
Even better now that it's not "exact fare".
But then I realised that those jammy buggers (such as, it would seem, the vast majority of GPs) who only work a 3-day week get to enjoy this every bloody week!
Go on
The problem for me using it is that there is only one per hour, and the last one from the city is at 1830, if I miss that, then there is another service part of the way, then I have a 2 mile walk. Incidentally my Trust runs a bus between the three hospital sites, about 2-3 miles apart, open to any passenger, but free with Staff ID. It is nearly always full.
Well we do. The line goes slap through the middle of town. But there are no stations. So fat lot of use they are.
Mind you so did a few other African capitals. Harare always seems nice.
If they do what him gone, consider what he wants right now - and although his side are openly confident of winning any vote, they are also trying very hard to prevent one occurring. So by not acting you are doing what he wants.