Crumbs I go out for a walk and some lunch and come back 8 hours later to find that the site is still going on about UKIP. Some of you fellows need to get out more.
This site may be the most-read political blog it is also well on the way to becoming the most boring.
Same thought process, they are just scared of losing control
T
(Better analogy.)
What are you trying to say? I didn't complain that UKIP were so often the subject of conversation, just noted the similarities between they way they are talked of, and other people who are abused for threatening cultural hegemony
"other people who are abused for threatening cultural hegemony?"
What does that mean?
You can answer my question first if you like
"what are you trying to say?" - that question?
OK - I was trying to say that it was no surprise that people talk about UKIP on PB.com and that this was not an obsession but was part of talking about politics because despite the fact that they are making a horlicks of it, UKIP are trying to be a political party.
Your turn now.
"other people who are abused for threatening cultural hegemony?"
Que?
Ah.. well as I said, I didn't complain about the UKIP dominated talk, just noted the similarities between the way UKIP are talked of and the way other people that threaten to lessen the power of those in charge..
Surprisingly (because I should get out more) I am familiar with both.
But neither Marx nor Althusser explains:
"other people who are abused for threatening cultural hegemony?"
are the other people abused for threatening [to impose] cultural hegemony or are they abused for putting cultural hegemony at risk (as in threatening it?).
Cultural hegemony is generally used in the context of, oh I don't know, abstract expressionism, whereby the US was accused of imposing an artistic orthodoxy on the world in order to impose their societal and cultural beliefs as part of the cold war struggle (see for example: "Modern Art and Modernism: ed Francis Francisca, Charles Harrison, plus the works of Fred Orton & Griselda Pollock) if we are going to get all reference-y. I'm sure the french would use it today to describe the Hollywood-isation of cinema,
But, in the name of Zeus's butthole, I don't get what you meant by your sentence.
TMZ stuff. That QE2 wasn't totally in charge of her faculties seems as far fetched as OJ Simpson. He was rather good in Capricorn One - a fav flick of mine.
You know I love you and we're aligned on many policy issues, but that's piffle.
His ego was red-lining and he knew he had a vanishingly small chance of losing.
That's not a "principled stand" - it's ego stroking. I have a very large one and similar red lines and you do too - most very successful people have one, it's not a negative. Most posters on PB are one if they were honest about themselves. We spot others like us.
I rather liked David D until his ego ran off with a unicorn - I've a tweak of narcissism and I'd never provoke a by-election I couldn't lose just to perk up my ego.
After that exploit, I just ignore him.
Except of course he didn't know he couldn't lose it until after he had made his decision. What you see as ego I see as a necessary principled stand. But then I suspect the issue was more important to me than it was to you.
Crumbs I go out for a walk and some lunch and come back 8 hours later to find that the site is still going on about UKIP. Some of you fellows need to get out more.
This site may be the most-read political blog it is also well on the way to becoming the most boring.
Same thought process, they are just scared of losing control
T
(Better analogy.)
What are you trying to say? I didn't complain that UKIP were so often the subject of conversation, just noted the similarities between they way they are talked of, and other people who are abused for threatening cultural hegemony
"other people who are abused for threatening cultural hegemony?"
What does that mean?
You can answer my question first if you like
"what are you trying to say?" - that question?
"other people who are abused for threatening cultural hegemony?"
Que?
Ah.. well as I said, I didn't complain about the UKIP dominated talk, just noted the similarities between the way UKIP are talked of and the way other people that threaten to lessen the power of those in charge..
Surprisingly (because I should get out more) I am familiar with both.
But neither Marx nor Althusser explains:
"other people who are abused for threatening cultural hegemony?"
are the other people abused for threatening [to impose] cultural hegemony or are they abused for putting cultural hegemony at risk (as in threatening it?).
Cultural hegemony is generally used in the context of, oh I don't know, abstract expressionism, whereby the US was accused of imposing an artistic orthodoxy on the world in order to impose their societal and cultural beliefs as part of the cold war struggle (see for example: "Modern Art and Modernism: ed Francis Francisca, Charles Harrison, plus the works of Fred Orton & Griselda Pollock) if we are going to get all reference-y. I'm sure the french would use it today to describe the Hollywood-isation of cinema,
But, in the name of Zeus's butthole, I don't get what you meant by your sentence.
"are the other people abused for threatening [to impose] cultural hegemony or are they abused for putting cultural hegemony at risk (as in threatening it?)."
TMZ stuff. That QE2 wasn't totally in charge of her faculties seems as far fetched as OJ Simpson. He was rather good in Capricorn One - a fav flick of mine.
Let's take each one individually: Farage will be gone if he fails to win Thanet S., as such his odds look about right. Cameron will be gone if he loses the next election aka less seats than Labour, as such his odds are too low. Likewise Miliband will be gone if he get less seats than the Tories, as such his odds are too high. Clegg will be out if he loses his seat, his odds look about right.
As for the rest I will have a go: Alan Hope might retire as MRLP leader so his odds are about right. The BoE will never increase interest rates ever again. Boris will still be Mayor until 2016 even if he becomes Tory leader. Osborne to be chancellor still depends on Tories winning most seats. The same applies for Balls for Labour winning most seats.
Labour may have to replace Balls as chancellor if they get dragged into an anti-austerity coalition of happiness with the SNP/Plaid Cymru/Greens.
OK we're going to leave it now because I am going to bed plus let's agree to leave it.
Your use of the term cultural hegemony in this instance is a category error.
You are saying that people are abused for threatening to put cultural hegemony at risk.
But that makes no sense. Cultural hegemony is the attempt to use culture as part of an attempt to reinforce/enforce the superiority of a particular culture/set of beliefs and norms, on an alien society. Most notably it applied to the cold war US.
It has no relevance to anything to do with UKIP.
How is your PPC effort going - that is much more relevant and interesting.
Crumbs I go out for a walk and some lunch and come back 8 hours later to find that the site is still going on about UKIP. Some of you fellows need to get out more.
This site may be the most-read political blog it is also well on the way to becoming the most boring.
Same thought process, they are just scared of losing control
T
(Better analogy.)
What does that mean?
You can answer my question first if you like
"what are you trying to say?" - that question?
Que?
Althusser & Marx and two wiki references. But neither Marx nor Althusser explains:
"are the other people abused for threatening [to impose] cultural hegemony or are they abused for putting cultural hegemony at risk (as in threatening it?)."
Putting it at risk (as in threatening it)
OK we're going to leave it now because I am going to bed plus let's agree to leave it.
Your use of the term cultural hegemony in this instance is a category error.
You are saying that people are abused for threatening to put cultural hegemony at risk.
But that makes no sense. Cultural hegemony is the attempt to use culture as part of an attempt to reinforce/enforce the superiority of a particular culture/set of beliefs and norms, on an alien society. Most notably it applied to the cold war US.
It has no relevance to anything to do with UKIP.
How is your PPC effort going - that is much more relevant and interesting.
I know what it is, and it isn't an error to use it in reference to the way UKIP are treated
I'm very unfashionable. I'm proud of the British Empire. And when my atlas was pink. Sure, we did bad things - but I believe it was good overall. Few independent nations are better now without us.
For a very small place - the Brits have a place in history like the Romans
I've been accused twice of being *heightest* by short men. One was white, another black. Both were good looking, successful and well off.
I laughed myself inside out at their outrage - they shouted about their insecurity by proxy. Sometimes I think a bit of self-examination is a good thing. Both those guys should spend less time finding fault with others than finding time to feel better about themselves.
Crumbs I go out for a walk and some lunch and come back 8 hours later to find that the site is still going on about UKIP. Some of you fellows need to get out more.
This site may be the most-read political blog it is also well on the way to becoming the most boring.
It's how I would imagine a white supremacist web site would talk about black people
Same thought process, they are just scared of losing control
Also comparable is the way racists talk of women who date men of a different coloured skin and the way people who defect to UKIP are treated
They are either the target of vicious abuse, or are said to be too good for them
Ghanaian refugee that I went to Uni with said Britain should be ashamed of the Empire and could learn al lot from the way Germany apologise for Hitler etc
Then she went on a dating website and specified no Asian or Chinese men as they're all a bit short
The vast majority of those that lived in British colonies are undoubtedly better off now than they were under the Empire, due to the fact that the Empire, in population terms, was mainly India plus a few add-ons.
Even ignoring India, the residents of the United States, Australia, Malaysia, Singapore, Canada, Namibia, Botswana, Ghana, Uganda, Kenya, New Zealand and South Africa are all better off.
TMZ stuff. That QE2 wasn't totally in charge of her faculties seems as far fetched as OJ Simpson. He was rather good in Capricorn One - a fav flick of mine.
Institutions with power control the culture, and when a movement or an individual poses a threat to it, the institutions use the instruments at their disposal to smear, rubbish, lie etc about those they perceive as a threat
If you know what I meant by cultural hegemony, how could you be so perplexed as to what I meant by saying those in charge use it to see off threats?
Spectacularly brilliant story in the Mail (and elsewhere).
Sinister, creepy Cornish "witch pits" (near Truro, where half my family lives) were CONTINUOUSLY used from the 1640s - i.e. the Civil War - right up to.... the 1970s, maybe later.
For decades experts have pooh-poohed the theory that there might have been a continuous surviving "occult" religion, clandestine and below-the-radar, dating from many centuries back without a break. It's Wicker Man stuff. Can't be right. Surely.
Yet, barring a hoax, here it is. And if it dates back to the 1640s in Cornwall, it might date back, unbroken, to a pre-Roman past.
Ooooooooooh.
Not really that surprising pagan groups persisted in Cornwall surviving the christianisation of the country they merely went underground and learnt to hide. Even so many pagan rituals still persisted in blatant open view such as the Mayday celebrations of Padstow where I hail from. I believe the oldest written reference to that was in 1340 or so. Those beliefs tended to be handed down and kept alive through family lines
Institutions with power control the culture, and when a movement or an individual poses a threat to it, the institutions use the instruments at their disposal to smear, rubbish, lie etc about those they perceive as a threat
If you know what I meant by cultural hegemony, how could you be sop perplexed as to what I meant?
Not cultural hegemony.
Something else which is valid and you are right to bring it to our attention but not cultural hegemony.
Sorry but "CH" has particular historical context, meaning and application.
Institutions with power control the culture, and when a movement or an individual poses a threat to it, the institutions use the instruments at their disposal to smear, rubbish, lie etc about those they perceive as a threat
If you know what I meant by cultural hegemony, how could you be sop perplexed as to what I meant?
Not cultural hegemony.
Something else which is valid and you are right to bring it to our attention but not cultural hegemony.
Sorry but "CH" has particular historical context, meaning and application.
I'm very unfashionable. I'm proud of the British Empire. And when my atlas was pink. Sure, we did bad things - but I believe it was good overall. Few independent nations are better now without us.
For a very small place - the Brits have a place in history like the Romans
I've been accused twice of being *heightest* by short men. One was white, another black. Both were good looking, successful and well off.
I laughed myself inside out at their outrage - they shouted about their insecurity by proxy. Sometimes I think a bit of self-examination is a good thing. Both those guys should spend less time finding fault with others than finding time to feel better about themselves.
Crumbs I go out for a walk and some lunch and come back 8 hours later to find that the site is still going on about UKIP. Some of you fellows need to get out more.
This site may be the most-read political blog it is also well on the way to becoming the most boring.
It's how I would imagine a white supremacist web site would talk about black people
Same thought process, they are just scared of losing control
Also comparable is the way racists talk of women who date men of a different coloured skin and the way people who defect to UKIP are treated
They are either the target of vicious abuse, or are said to be too good for them
Ghanaian refugee that I went to Uni with said Britain should be ashamed of the Empire and could learn al lot from the way Germany apologise for Hitler etc
Then she went on a dating website and specified no Asian or Chinese men as they're all a bit short
The vast majority of those that lived in British colonies are undoubtedly better off now than they were under the Empire, due to the fact that the Empire, in population terms, was mainly India plus a few add-ons.
Even ignoring India, the residents of the United States, Australia, Malaysia, Singapore, Canada, Namibia, Botswana, Ghana, Uganda, Kenya, New Zealand and South Africa are all better off.
Institutions with power control the culture, and when a movement or an individual poses a threat to it, the institutions use the instruments at their disposal to smear, rubbish, lie etc about those they perceive as a threat
If you know what I meant by cultural hegemony, how could you be sop perplexed as to what I meant?
Not cultural hegemony.
Something else which is valid and you are right to bring it to our attention but not cultural hegemony.
Sorry but "CH" has particular historical context, meaning and application.
We disagree
ha! Agree!
My point (and this is not last word-ism) is that UKIP is or reflects the establishment (or in your terms: the ruling class). It takes particular intellectual acrobatics to position them as somehow a group which the ruling class then seeks to manipulate.
The concept of cultural hegemony is that the powerful or incumbents seek to impose values upon or subordinate the usurpers (whether domestically or globally).
UKIP is that establishment which (as I see it) believes or fears that power is being taken from them.
Institutions with power control the culture, and when a movement or an individual poses a threat to it, the institutions use the instruments at their disposal to smear, rubbish, lie etc about those they perceive as a threat
If you know what I meant by cultural hegemony, how could you be sop perplexed as to what I meant?
Not cultural hegemony.
Something else which is valid and you are right to bring it to our attention but not cultural hegemony.
Sorry but "CH" has particular historical context, meaning and application.
We disagree
ha! Agree!
My point (and this is not last word-ism) is that UKIP is or reflects the establishment (or in your terms: the ruling class). It takes particular intellectual acrobatics to position them as somehow a group which the ruling class then seeks to manipulate.
The concept of cultural hegemony is that the powerful or incumbents seek to impose values upon or subordinate the usurpers (whether domestically or globally).
UKIP is that establishment which (as I see it) believes or fears that power is being taken from them.
I'm very unfashionable. I'm proud of the British Empire. And when my atlas was pink. Sure, we did bad things - but I believe it was good overall. Few independent nations are better now without us.
For a very small place - the Brits have a place in history like the Romans
I've been accused twice of being *heightest* by short men. One was white, another black. Both were good looking, successful and well off.
I laughed myself inside out at their outrage - they shouted about their insecurity by proxy. Sometimes I think a bit of self-examination is a good thing. Both those guys should spend less time finding fault with others than finding time to feel better about themselves.
Crumbs I go out for a walk and some lunch and come back 8 hours later to find that the site is still going on about UKIP. Some of you fellows need to get out more.
This site may be the most-read political blog it is also well on the way to becoming the most boring.
It's how I would imagine a white supremacist web site would talk about black people
Same thought process, they are just scared of losing control
Also comparable is the way racists talk of women who date men of a different coloured skin and the way people who defect to UKIP are treated
They are either the target of vicious abuse, or are said to be too good for them
Ghanaian refugee that I went to Uni with said Britain should be ashamed of the Empire and could learn al lot from the way Germany apologise for Hitler etc
Then she went on a dating website and specified no Asian or Chinese men as they're all a bit short
The vast majority of those that lived in British colonies are undoubtedly better off now than they were under the Empire, due to the fact that the Empire, in population terms, was mainly India plus a few add-ons.
Even ignoring India, the residents of the United States, Australia, Malaysia, Singapore, Canada, Namibia, Botswana, Ghana, Uganda, Kenya, New Zealand and South Africa are all better off.
Most of the Empire was gone by the mid-60s. By the mid-70s we had very little left; pretty much what we have now plus Hong Kong. I always thought you were younger than me, not 15-20 years older!
Spectacularly brilliant story in the Mail (and elsewhere).
Sinister, creepy Cornish "witch pits" (near Truro, where half my family lives) were CONTINUOUSLY used from the 1640s - i.e. the Civil War - right up to.... the 1970s, maybe later.
For decades experts have pooh-poohed the theory that there might have been a continuous surviving "occult" religion, clandestine and below-the-radar, dating from many centuries back without a break. It's Wicker Man stuff. Can't be right. Surely.
Yet, barring a hoax, here it is. And if it dates back to the 1640s in Cornwall, it might date back, unbroken, to a pre-Roman past.
Ooooooooooh.
Not really that surprising pagan groups persisted in Cornwall surviving the christianisation of the country they merely went underground and learnt to hide. Even so many pagan rituals still persisted in blatant open view such as the Mayday celebrations of Padstow where I hail from. I believe the oldest written reference to that was in 1340 or so. Those beliefs tended to be handed down and kept alive through family lines
I am Cornish too. I know about Padstow. There is a lot of "expert" debate about the historicity of the Obby Oss celebration. Some claim it might be one of the very few European rituals which can be traced back to pre-Roman times.... back to the Iron Age!
Skeptical historians say, however, that there is scant if any evidence that it has been around for more than a few centuries, and may be, disappointingly, of early 19th century origin.
I know that when I first went to see it and heard the drums beating it felt very very old to me, subjectively. Kind of primordial. A true pagan fertility rite.
Anyway this Cornish discovery is a nice poke in the eye for the boring skeptics and sneerers, who think nothing dates back more than about 8 months. e.g. I actually met an academic the other day who believed no cultural tradition could survive more than a few generations without literature, despite clear evidence of European cave art repeating shared motifs over 30,000 years.
I may tie her in a swan skin and throw her in the 500 year old Saveock witch pits. See how she feels then.
The sound of those drums always makes me homesick and indeed I have only missed returning home for it twice
I'm very unfashionable. I'm proud of the British Empire. And when my atlas was pink. Sure, we did bad things - but I believe it was good overall. Few independent nations are better now without us.
For a very small place - the Brits have a place in history like the Romans
I've been accused twice of being *heightest* by short men. One was white, another black. Both were good looking, successful and well off.
I laughed myself inside out at their outrage - they shouted about their insecurity by proxy. Sometimes I think a bit of self-examination is a good thing. Both those guys should spend less time finding fault with others than finding time to feel better about themselves.
Crumbs I go out for a walk and some lunch and come back 8 hours later to find that the site is still going on about UKIP. Some of you fellows need to get out more.
This site may be the most-read political blog it is also well on the way to becoming the most boring.
It's how I would imagine a white supremacist web site would talk about black people
Same thought process, they are just scared of losing control
Also comparable is the way racists talk of women who date men of a different coloured skin and the way people who defect to UKIP are treated
They are either the target of vicious abuse, or are said to be too good for them
Ghanaian refugee that I went to Uni with said Britain should be ashamed of the Empire and could learn al lot from the way Germany apologise for Hitler etc
Then she went on a dating website and specified no Asian or Chinese men as they're all a bit short
The vast majority of those that lived in British colonies are undoubtedly better off now than they were under the Empire, due to the fact that the Empire, in population terms, was mainly India plus a few add-ons.
Even ignoring India, the residents of the United States, Australia, Malaysia, Singapore, Canada, Namibia, Botswana, Ghana, Uganda, Kenya, New Zealand and South Africa are all better off.
If only the Empire had been a democratic federation, it would still largely be intact today.
My alternate history Empire would include all Commonwealth nations, all English-speaking countries outside the Commonwealth, and the EU (by virtue of it having English as an official language!). The Imperial Senate would be the legislative body, which would inspire George Lucas to "homage" it in Star Wars
TMZ stuff. That QE2 wasn't totally in charge of her faculties seems as far fetched as OJ Simpson. He was rather good in Capricorn One - a fav flick of mine.
3 references at the err, more 'specialist' end of the market. One suspects they're all related too.
As to the ITCSS, why bother. It's a one man band operation made out to be an International legal body.
How can a one man band bring about the resignation of one Pope (so far - possibly another to follow), the potential abdication of The Queen, the resignation of the Primate of Ireland and many other effects? The fact is that whistleblowers are breaking ranks all over the shop to expose the activities of The Ninth Circle of The Roman Catholic Church.
I'm very unfashionable. I'm proud of the British Empire. And when my atlas was pink. Sure, we did bad things - but I believe it was good overall. Few independent nations are better now without us.
For a very small place - the Brits have a place in history like the Romans
I've been accused twice of being *heightest* by short men. One was white, another black. Both were good looking, successful and well off.
I laughed myself inside out at their outrage - they shouted about their insecurity by proxy. Sometimes I think a bit of self-examination is a good thing. Both those guys should spend less time finding fault with others than finding time to feel better about themselves.
Crumbs I go out for a walk and some lunch and come back 8 hours later to find that the site is still going on about UKIP. Some of you fellows need to get out more.
This site may be the most-read political blog it is also well on the way to becoming the most boring.
It's how I would imagine a white supremacist web site would talk about black people
Same thought process, they are just scared of losing control
Also comparable is the way racists talk of women who date men of a different coloured skin and the way people who defect to UKIP are treated
They are either the target of vicious abuse, or are said to be too good for them
Ghanaian refugee that I went to Uni with said Britain should be ashamed of the Empire and could learn al lot from the way Germany apologise for Hitler etc
Then she went on a dating website and specified no Asian or Chinese men as they're all a bit short
The vast majority of those that lived in British colonies are undoubtedly better off now than they were under the Empire, due to the fact that the Empire, in population terms, was mainly India plus a few add-ons.
Even ignoring India, the residents of the United States, Australia, Malaysia, Singapore, Canada, Namibia, Botswana, Ghana, Uganda, Kenya, New Zealand and South Africa are all better off.
Most of the Empire was gone by the mid-60s. By the mid-70s we had very little left; pretty much what we have now plus Hong Kong. I always thought you were younger than me, not 15-20 years older!
I'm very unfashionable. I'm proud of the British Empire. And when my atlas was pink. Sure, we did bad things - but I believe it was good overall. Few independent nations are better now without us.
For a very small place - the Brits have a place in history like the Romans
Crumbs I go out for a walk and some lunch and come back 8 hours later to find that the site is still going on about UKIP. Some of you fellows need to get out more.
This site may be the most-read political blog it is also well on the way to becoming the most boring.
It's how I would imagine a white supremacist web site would talk about black people
Same thought process, they are just scared of losing control
Also comparable is the way racists talk of women who date men of a different coloured skin and the way people who defect to UKIP are treated
They are either the target of vicious abuse, or are said to be too good for them
Ghanaian refugee that I went to Uni with said Britain should be ashamed of the Empire and could learn al lot from the way Germany apologise for Hitler etc
Then she went on a dating website and specified no Asian or Chinese men as they're all a bit short
The vast majority of those that lived in British colonies are undoubtedly better off now than they were under the Empire, due to the fact that the Empire, in population terms, was mainly India plus a few add-ons.
Even ignoring India, the residents of the United States, Australia, Malaysia, Singapore, Canada, Namibia, Botswana, Ghana, Uganda, Kenya, New Zealand and South Africa are all better off.
Check the top ten "most liveable" countries according to the OECD. Four are outposts of the British empire: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, USA.
TMZ stuff. That QE2 wasn't totally in charge of her faculties seems as far fetched as OJ Simpson. He was rather good in Capricorn One - a fav flick of mine.
3 references at the err, more 'specialist' end of the market. One suspects they're all related too.
As to the ITCSS, why bother. It's a one man band operation made out to be an International legal body.
How can a one man band bring about the resignation of one Pope (so far - possibly another to follow), the potential abdication of The Queen, the resignation of the Primate of Ireland and many other effects? The fact is that whistleblowers are breaking ranks all over the shop to expose the activities of The Ninth Circle of The Roman Catholic Church.
It can't and it hasn't. really Tapestry, just because you have changed your name doesn't mean your lunatic theories are any more acceptable or based on any sort of reality.
Spectacularly brilliant story in the Mail (and elsewhere).
Sinister, creepy Cornish "witch pits" (near Truro, where half my family lives) were CONTINUOUSLY used from the 1640s - i.e. the Civil War - right up to.... the 1970s, maybe later.
For decades experts have pooh-poohed the theory that there might have been a continuous surviving "occult" religion, clandestine and below-the-radar, dating from many centuries back without a break. It's Wicker Man stuff. Can't be right. Surely.
Yet, barring a hoax, here it is. And if it dates back to the 1640s in Cornwall, it might date back, unbroken, to a pre-Roman past.
Ooooooooooh.
Well fingers crossed and touch wood nothing happens to those archaeologists for exposing it.
I rather liked David D until his ego ran off with a unicorn - I've a tweak of narcissism and I'd never provoke a by-election I couldn't lose just to perk up my ego.
After that exploit, I just ignore him.
Except of course he didn't know he couldn't lose it until after he had made his decision. What you see as ego I see as a necessary principled stand. But then I suspect the issue was more important to me than it was to you.
If the issue was so important to him why did he run the risk of losing his seat rather than concentrating on doing something really useful like becoming Tory Home Secretary? The issue was important and campaigning in parliament was the right way forward. Not a bogus by-election. In the end the other parties treated it with contempt so even winning back the seat he had thrown away was pointless. Pointless of course unless the tories lost the election which he would have helped to throw away and then given himself a right wing platform to the leadership right out of the Harold Wilson 'carefully timed resignation playbook'. At best it was hysteria at worst a calculated ploy.
That's why I'm proud of our history. We applaud the Romans - why not the Brits?
Do the Belgians or Francs cringe at their legacy whatever that was? Congo?- India is a fabulous place - I'd emigrate to Rajasthan in an instant
The Belgians are deeply embarrassed about how they ran the Congo (at least, those who've learned about it). Certainly the British Empire was generally better than that. My impression is that we made something of an effort to develop places we'd occupied and run them according to clear rules without much corruption, but we were often pretty nasty to anyone who objected to our presence.
That's why I'm proud of our history. We applaud the Romans - why not the Brits?
Do the Belgians or Francs cringe at their legacy whatever that was? Congo?- India is a fabulous place - I'd emigrate to Rajasthan in an instant
The Belgians are deeply embarrassed about how they ran the Congo (at least, those who've learned about it). Certainly the British Empire was generally better than that. My impression is that we made something of an effort to develop places we'd occupied and run them according to clear rules without much corruption, but we were often pretty nasty to anyone who objected to our presence.
Thank you
(My mother's famiy was very involved in both India and Ceylon as was, while my father's family still maintains a very constructive relationship with the workers co-operative they gave their Indian tea plantations to.
That's why I'm proud of our history. We applaud the Romans - why not the Brits?
Do the Belgians or Francs cringe at their legacy whatever that was? Congo?- India is a fabulous place - I'd emigrate to Rajasthan in an instant
The Belgians are deeply embarrassed about how they ran the Congo (at least, those who've learned about it). Certainly the British Empire was generally better than that. My impression is that we made something of an effort to develop places we'd occupied and run them according to clear rules without much corruption, but we were often pretty nasty to anyone who objected to our presence.
Thank you
(My mother's famiy was very involved in both India and Ceylon as was, while my father's family still maintains a very constructive relationship with the workers co-operative they gave their Indian tea plantations to.
That's why I'm proud of our history. We applaud the Romans - why not the Brits?
Do the Belgians or Francs cringe at their legacy whatever that was? Congo?- India is a fabulous place - I'd emigrate to Rajasthan in an instant
The Belgians are deeply embarrassed about how they ran the Congo
I dont think embarrassed goes quite far enough. Though iirc the worst of the horrors were committed when the (Belgian) Congo was a personal possession of the King of the Belgians rather than a Belgian colony outright. Of course the British executed one of the men who did most to end the abuses in that part of the world
The OMRLP constitution says that Alan Hope will remain as leader of the party for the rest of his life; leadership elections will be once every 5 years thereafter. So the odds on him not being leader of the OMRLP any more should be the odds on him dying in the defined time period. He is 72 and spherical, but not imminently poppable.
The OMRLP constitution says that Alan Hope will remain as leader of the party for the rest of his life; leadership elections will be once every 5 years thereafter. So the odds on him not being leader of the OMRLP any more should be the odds on him dying in the defined time period. He is 72 and spherical, but not imminently poppable.
Does not the omrlp constitution state that any candidate keeping his deposit has to resign. Given his age and rotundity resigning by meeting his maker is probably more likely but with the febrile nature of current politics keeping his deposit also surely has to be weighed in
The OMRLP constitution says that Alan Hope will remain as leader of the party for the rest of his life; leadership elections will be once every 5 years thereafter. So the odds on him not being leader of the OMRLP any more should be the odds on him dying in the defined time period. He is 72 and spherical, but not imminently poppable.
Does not the omrlp constitution state that any candidate keeping his deposit has to resign.
No, that's a sort-of convention which has never been activated (and probably wouldn't be) rather than a rule.
For those interested, here's the link to this range of special political bets from Hills (as opposed to the one shown in the thread header): http://sports.williamhill.com/bet/en-gb/betting/e/7011996/2015-Politics-Specials.html For my money, the value bet is for Nick Clegg to leave as LibDem leader at odds of 6/4. I just wish I could OPPOSE those odds of 4/5 on George Osborne being CoE on 31 Dec. 2015.
That's why I'm proud of our history. We applaud the Romans - why not the Brits?
Do the Belgians or Francs cringe at their legacy whatever that was? Congo?- India is a fabulous place - I'd emigrate to Rajasthan in an instant
It seems like you're trying to have it both ways. If a former British colony is doing badly, that's evidence that they were better under British rule. If a former British colony is doing well, that's evidence that they've benefitted from British rule. It seems to me that you're starting from the conclusion you like, and then interpreting evidence whichever way you can to justify it.
The history of the British in India was one of tax rates up to 90% on peasant farmers, a compulsory monopsony that bought their products below market rates, and extracting the wealth of the continent to Britain rather than building up grain stores for famines. The result was economic misery and huge numbers of deaths when the crops failed. The British administrators openly boasted about how they had turned manufacturing provinces into raw commodity exporters. Bengal was transformed from one of the richest countries in the world into the impoverished failed state it is today.
Of course, there were places where the British benefitted the locals, like Singapore and Hong Kong, but the vast, vast majority of British subjects were in India, and they got royally screwed by British rule. That's "why not the Brits".
A proud, confident nation should be able to admit to its historical mistakes, rather than whitewash them away. When we stayed true to the British values of constitutional rule, free and fair commerce, and parliamentary democracy, we have been a huge plus to the world. But sadly in much of our Empire we instead resorted to authoritarianism and rigged economic exploitation.
That's why I'm proud of our history. We applaud the Romans - why not the Brits?
Do the Belgians or Francs cringe at their legacy whatever that was? Congo?- India is a fabulous place - I'd emigrate to Rajasthan in an instant
The Belgians are deeply embarrassed about how they ran the Congo (at least, those who've learned about it). Certainly the British Empire was generally better than that. My impression is that we made something of an effort to develop places we'd occupied and run them according to clear rules without much corruption, but we were often pretty nasty to anyone who objected to our presence.
In India we tried to actively set up a mercantilist system to revert them back from manufacturing to agriculture. So the opposite of your impression.
That's why I'm proud of our history. We applaud the Romans - why not the Brits?
Do the Belgians or Francs cringe at their legacy whatever that was? Congo?- India is a fabulous place - I'd emigrate to Rajasthan in an instant
The Belgians are deeply embarrassed about how they ran the Congo (at least, those who've learned about it). Certainly the British Empire was generally better than that. My impression is that we made something of an effort to develop places we'd occupied and run them according to clear rules without much corruption, but we were often pretty nasty to anyone who objected to our presence.
In India we tried to actively set up a mercantilist system to revert them back from manufacturing to agriculture. So the opposite of your impression.
You will be talking about neo classical non endogenous growth theory next! But you are to be applauded for questioning the argument. However is it right to suggest ulterior motives for an economic policy widely prevalent and widely accepted right the way through to the Napoleonic period? I am sure both economically and politically the purpose of an empire was to exploit it for the benefit of the home nation. The balance of how wrong but inevitable that was is a nice point to argue but within it Mr P's argument is that we were more just than others and we had some other (paternalistic?) purpose as well as our own base self interest. The basis of that purpose may have been flawed of course - eg we considered our selves racially and intellectually superior.
Spectacularly brilliant story in the Mail (and elsewhere).
Sinister, creepy Cornish "witch pits" (near Truro, where half my family lives) were CONTINUOUSLY used from the 1640s - i.e. the Civil War - right up to.... the 1970s, maybe later.
For decades experts have pooh-poohed the theory that there might have been a continuous surviving "occult" religion, clandestine and below-the-radar, dating from many centuries back without a break. It's Wicker Man stuff. Can't be right. Surely.
Yet, barring a hoax, here it is. And if it dates back to the 1640s in Cornwall, it might date back, unbroken, to a pre-Roman past.
Ooooooooooh.
Not really that surprising pagan groups persisted in Cornwall surviving the christianisation of the country they merely went underground and learnt to hide. Even so many pagan rituals still persisted in blatant open view such as the Mayday celebrations of Padstow where I hail from. I believe the oldest written reference to that was in 1340 or so. Those beliefs tended to be handed down and kept alive through family lines
I am Cornish too. I know about Padstow. There is a lot of "expert" debate about the historicity of the Obby Oss celebration. Some claim it might be one of the very few European rituals which can be traced back to pre-Roman times.... back to the Iron Age!
Skeptical historians say, however, that there is scant if any evidence that it has been around for more than a few centuries, and may be, disappointingly, of early 19th century origin.
I know that when I first went to see it and heard the drums beating it felt very very old to me, subjectively. Kind of primordial. A true pagan fertility rite.
Anyway this Cornish discovery is a nice poke in the eye for the boring skeptics and sneerers, who think nothing dates back more than about 8 months. e.g. I actually met an academic the other day who believed no cultural tradition could survive more than a few generations without literature, despite clear evidence of European cave art repeating shared motifs over 30,000 years.
I may tie her in a swan skin and throw her in the 500 year old Saveock witch pits. See how she feels then.
The sound of those drums always makes me homesick and indeed I have only missed returning home for it twice
Wasn't the story of Troy much older than "writing"?
Comments
Surprisingly (because I should get out more) I am familiar with both.
But neither Marx nor Althusser explains:
"other people who are abused for threatening cultural hegemony?"
are the other people abused for threatening [to impose] cultural hegemony or are they abused for putting cultural hegemony at risk (as in threatening it?).
Cultural hegemony is generally used in the context of, oh I don't know, abstract expressionism, whereby the US was accused of imposing an artistic orthodoxy on the world in order to impose their societal and cultural beliefs as part of the cold war struggle (see for example: "Modern Art and Modernism: ed Francis Francisca, Charles Harrison, plus the works of Fred Orton & Griselda Pollock) if we are going to get all reference-y. I'm sure the french would use it today to describe the Hollywood-isation of cinema,
But, in the name of Zeus's butthole, I don't get what you meant by your sentence.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/International_Tribunal_into_Crimes_of_Church_and_State
http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/royal-familys-fury-after-new-book-claims-the-queen-mother-was-insane-and-inebriated-during-final-years-of-her-life/
His ego was red-lining and he knew he had a vanishingly small chance of losing.
That's not a "principled stand" - it's ego stroking. I have a very large one and similar red lines and you do too - most very successful people have one, it's not a negative. Most posters on PB are one if they were honest about themselves. We spot others like us.
"are the other people abused for threatening [to impose] cultural hegemony or are they abused for putting cultural hegemony at risk (as in threatening it?)."
Putting it at risk (as in threatening it)
It trumps Sion Simon in The New Statesman
ITCCS? Look at their own website - http://itccs.org
"Putting it at risk (as in threatening it)"
OK we're going to leave it now because I am going to bed plus let's agree to leave it.
Your use of the term cultural hegemony in this instance is a category error.
You are saying that people are abused for threatening to put cultural hegemony at risk.
But that makes no sense. Cultural hegemony is the attempt to use culture as part of an attempt to reinforce/enforce the superiority of a particular culture/set of beliefs and norms, on an alien society. Most notably it applied to the cold war US.
It has no relevance to anything to do with UKIP.
How is your PPC effort going - that is much more relevant and interesting.
I'm still awake!!
So ok what on earth did you mean???!!
Even ignoring India, the residents of the United States, Australia, Malaysia, Singapore, Canada, Namibia, Botswana, Ghana, Uganda, Kenya, New Zealand and South Africa are all better off.
As to the ITCSS, why bother. It's a one man band operation made out to be an International legal body.
If you know what I meant by cultural hegemony, how could you be so perplexed as to what I meant by saying those in charge use it to see off threats?
Something else which is valid and you are right to bring it to our attention but not cultural hegemony.
Sorry but "CH" has particular historical context, meaning and application.
Very few ended up better off. The Romans gave us a lot and we were smart enough not to discard it. I wish our colonies did the same.
I adore India and it feels like home. If I ever emigrate - it will be there.
My point (and this is not last word-ism) is that UKIP is or reflects the establishment (or in your terms: the ruling class). It takes particular intellectual acrobatics to position them as somehow a group which the ruling class then seeks to manipulate.
The concept of cultural hegemony is that the powerful or incumbents seek to impose values upon or subordinate the usurpers (whether domestically or globally).
UKIP is that establishment which (as I see it) believes or fears that power is being taken from them.
That is a different kettle of herring.
My alternate history Empire would include all Commonwealth nations, all English-speaking countries outside the Commonwealth, and the EU (by virtue of it having English as an official language!). The Imperial Senate would be the legislative body, which would inspire George Lucas to "homage" it in Star Wars
That's why I'm proud of our history. We applaud the Romans - why not the Brits?
Do the Belgians or Francs cringe at their legacy whatever that was? Congo?- India is a fabulous place - I'd emigrate to Rajasthan in an instant
In the end the other parties treated it with contempt so even winning back the seat he had thrown away was pointless.
Pointless of course unless the tories lost the election which he would have helped to throw away and then given himself a right wing platform to the leadership right out of the Harold Wilson 'carefully timed resignation playbook'.
At best it was hysteria at worst a calculated ploy.
(My mother's famiy was very involved in both India and Ceylon as was, while my father's family still maintains a very constructive relationship with the workers co-operative they gave their Indian tea plantations to.
(My mother's famiy was very involved in both India and Ceylon as was, while my father's family still maintains a very constructive relationship with the workers co-operative they gave their Indian tea plantations to.
http://www.renewableuk.com/en/news/press-releases.cfm/2014-12-09-record-wind-power-levels-as-new-research-shows-clear-majority-back-wind-energy-projects-near-them
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/dec/09/british-wind-farms-set-new-record
http://sports.williamhill.com/bet/en-gb/betting/e/7011996/2015-Politics-Specials.html
For my money, the value bet is for Nick Clegg to leave as LibDem leader at odds of 6/4. I just wish I could OPPOSE those odds of 4/5 on George Osborne being CoE on 31 Dec. 2015.
See the problem?
The history of the British in India was one of tax rates up to 90% on peasant farmers, a compulsory monopsony that bought their products below market rates, and extracting the wealth of the continent to Britain rather than building up grain stores for famines. The result was economic misery and huge numbers of deaths when the crops failed. The British administrators openly boasted about how they had turned manufacturing provinces into raw commodity exporters. Bengal was transformed from one of the richest countries in the world into the impoverished failed state it is today.
Of course, there were places where the British benefitted the locals, like Singapore and Hong Kong, but the vast, vast majority of British subjects were in India, and they got royally screwed by British rule. That's "why not the Brits".
A proud, confident nation should be able to admit to its historical mistakes, rather than whitewash them away. When we stayed true to the British values of constitutional rule, free and fair commerce, and parliamentary democracy, we have been a huge plus to the world. But sadly in much of our Empire we instead resorted to authoritarianism and rigged economic exploitation.
But you are to be applauded for questioning the argument.
However is it right to suggest ulterior motives for an economic policy widely prevalent and widely accepted right the way through to the Napoleonic period?
I am sure both economically and politically the purpose of an empire was to exploit it for the benefit of the home nation. The balance of how wrong but inevitable that was is a nice point to argue but within it Mr P's argument is that we were more just than others and we had some other (paternalistic?) purpose as well as our own base self interest. The basis of that purpose may have been flawed of course - eg we considered our selves racially and intellectually superior.