The club’s board met on Wednesday afternoon following a petition from the fans’ pressure group Exeter Chiefs 4 Change which demanded an end to the club’s use of “harmful imagery and branding”, which included a Native American headdress, saying there was no place for it in a predominantly white British environment.
I don't really follow club rugby, but I'm adopting the Chiefs as my team.
Are we now saying that we cannot mix cultures at all and we all have to have separate pristine cultures ? Sounds at best a rather miserable policy and at worse something the BNP /Islamic jihadis or Nazis would agree with.
I like the fact that, in that Guardian article, the journalist didn't ask an actual Maori about who should/shouldn't perform the Haka.
I've read about this before and as I recall the biggest beef Maori people* had was not that the Haka was done, it is part of New Zealand culture so it's not like the All Blacks are doing something alien, but that it used to be done so badly.
* Generally speaking, I'm sure there are some people who think that only Maori person should perform it.
Cultural appropriation, taken to its endpoint, is pretty much the end of sport (and much else, like cuisine, partying, etc). Enjoying and celebrating and incorporating other cultures is the one great undeniable benefit of multiculturalism. It is quintessentially jubiliant.
This is the opposite. It is a deadening puritanism. It sees sin everywhere.
It will not last, just as Puritanism did not last, but in the interim it can do terrible damage.
America is particularly prone to these mad fits of self-hating monasticism. See Prohibition.
According to the latest research Gospel music originated in the Scottish Hebrides so if cultural appropriation is not allowed African Americans should stop singing it.
It's a theory that's been around for a while. I don't think Hebrideans are much bothered. I attended a concert, Psalm and Soul, in Glasgow a few years ago and saw a few of my dad's pals from Lewis and Harris there. Said hello at the interval after the Lewis Weefree choir had sang, then they buggered off before the US Gospel choir did their stuff.
Well that would depend on whether you are of Scots Lowland descent (ie basically English) or, much less likely, of Highland Gaelic descent (in which case you might be more covetous of your artistic lineage).
This is how this works.
Lowland Scots are far removed from being English despite the desperate efforts to try and make it so.
Question: if the “death rates” now had been like this at the start of the outbreak, would the country have taken the measures that it did? And if it does become apparent at some point that the virus has mutated to something more akin in “danger” to flu (or even something like Swine flu in 2010!) how would the Govt go about changing policy to reflect this?
Have death rates really dropped that much? The hospitalised mortality rate in Texas is just short of 10% for example. It was 15% in New York at the peak there, so a modest improvement, or possibly just slightly earlier in the course of the disease.
“Hospitalised mortality” and “mortality” aren’t the same thing though, are they?
No, but that is determined by the denominator of diagnosed cases. I think it is still running between 1-2%.
In the UK we have 46 000 deaths from 301 000 infections, so about 14%. Even with only 10% of cases diagnosed that falls in the range.
Question: if the “death rates” now had been like this at the start of the outbreak, would the country have taken the measures that it did? And if it does become apparent at some point that the virus has mutated to something more akin in “danger” to flu (or even something like Swine flu in 2010!) how would the Govt go about changing policy to reflect this?
Even worse, if the virus also mutates to become more virulent as well as much less harmful, will we find that Govts learn the wrong lesson and take it as evidence that “opening up” is the cause of rapid rises in case numbers, (thinking that death/serious illness will be a lagging indicator) and launch future crackdown, when actually it is nothing to worry about at all.
And are we looking forward to a future where “extreme lockdowns’ are the first response to emerging pandemics, at enormous economic cost. How would we have managed Swine flu today if we’d had the experience of COVID to guide us?
At the moment the greater concern would be the apparently profound long term health consequences (although it isn’t clear yet how common such lasting effects are)
Well quite. But i'm thinking (at an extreme) of say, a country like New Zealand. Because of their Government policy they are testing EVERYONE that comes into the country. And EVERYONE has to quarantine.
If the virus mutates to the extent that it only causes death or serious long term health consequences to, say 0.1% of those it infects, how does the government of New Zealand go about shifting policy to accommodate that? Given how much their reputation is based actually on keeping the country COVID free? Or do the economic pressures just force their hand?
The club’s board met on Wednesday afternoon following a petition from the fans’ pressure group Exeter Chiefs 4 Change which demanded an end to the club’s use of “harmful imagery and branding”, which included a Native American headdress, saying there was no place for it in a predominantly white British environment.
I don't really follow club rugby, but I'm adopting the Chiefs as my team.
Are we now saying that we cannot mix cultures at all and we all have to have separate pristine cultures ? Sounds at best a rather miserable policy and at worse something the BNP /Islamic jihadis or Nazis would agree with.
I like the fact that, in that Guardian article, the journalist didn't ask an actual Maori about who should/shouldn't perform the Haka.
I've read about this before and as I recall the biggest beef Maori people* had was not that the Haka was done, it is part of New Zealand culture so it's not like the All Blacks are doing something alien, but that it used to be done so badly.
* Generally speaking, I'm sure there are some people who think that only Maori person should perform it.
Cultural appropriation, taken to its endpoint, is pretty much the end of sport (and much else, like cuisine, partying, etc). Enjoying and celebrating and incorporating other cultures is the one great undeniable benefit of multiculturalism. It is quintessentially jubiliant.
This is the opposite. It is a deadening puritanism. It sees sin everywhere.
It will not last, just as Puritanism did not last, but in the interim it can do terrible damage.
America is particularly prone to these mad fits of self-hating monasticism. See Prohibition.
According to the latest research Gospel music originated in the Scottish Hebrides so if cultural appropriation is not allowed African Americans should stop singing it.
It's a theory that's been around for a while. I don't think Hebrideans are much bothered. I attended a concert, Psalm and Soul, in Glasgow a few years ago and saw a few of my dad's pals from Lewis and Harris there. Said hello at the interval after the Lewis Weefree choir had sang, then they buggered off before the US Gospel choir did their stuff.
Well that would depend on whether you are of Scots Lowland descent (ie basically English) or, much less likely, of Highland Gaelic descent (in which case you might be more covetous of your artistic lineage).
This is how this works.
Lowland Scots are far removed from being English despite the desperate efforts to try and make it so.
Well if you have 500+ new infections a day it doesn’t need to come from abroad it’s there already, why the need to blame it was always going to happen it as only an idiot that thought it would be over in 12 weeks/by Christmas.
Lookin how rampant the disease is in the USA, Latin America, the Subcontinent, etc, reinfection from abroad is a real risk. Particularly so for diaspora communities.
Lookin how rampant the disease is in the USA, Latin America, the Subcontinent, etc, reinfection from abroad is a real risk. Particularly so for diaspora communities.
Then why do we not have quarantine? If they fail to impose that, or ban foreign travel, the government cannot then complain if we import cases from abroad.
Well if you have 500+ new infections a day it doesn’t need to come from abroad it’s there already, why the need to blame it was always going to happen it as only an idiot that thought it would be over in 12 weeks/by Christmas.
Because Boris needs to justify Brexit and they are killing your parents is a perfect excuse for Brexit (regardless of the reality that it was you returning from Europe and infecting your parents that resulted in their deaths).
Lookin how rampant the disease is in the USA, Latin America, the Subcontinent, etc, reinfection from abroad is a real risk. Particularly so for diaspora communities.
Then why do we not have quarantine? If they fail to impose that, or ban foreign travel, the government cannot then complain if we import cases from abroad.
The particular problem with the subcontinent is that the Government's current "quarantine" policy, even if fully complied with/enforced is not likely to be effective for them. Because large numbers of visitors from the subcontinent will likely be visiting and staying with family/relatives. And the rules as written currently don't require the individuals you are quarantining with to quarantine themselves.
Lookin how rampant the disease is in the USA, Latin America, the Subcontinent, etc, reinfection from abroad is a real risk. Particularly so for diaspora communities.
Then why do we not have quarantine? If they fail to impose that, or ban foreign travel, the government cannot then complain if we import cases from abroad.
The particular problem with the subcontinent is that the Government's current "quarantine" policy, even if fully complied with/enforced is not likely to be effective for them. Because large numbers of visitors from the subcontinent will likely be visiting and staying with family/relatives. And the rules as written currently don't require the individuals you are quarantining with to quarantine themselves.
I suspect the assumption is that that would be common sense but as we all know common sense isn't that common.
Lookin how rampant the disease is in the USA, Latin America, the Subcontinent, etc, reinfection from abroad is a real risk. Particularly so for diaspora communities.
Then why do we not have quarantine? If they fail to impose that, or ban foreign travel, the government cannot then complain if we import cases from abroad.
I think we should, apart from direct flights from some low risk countries.
The club’s board met on Wednesday afternoon following a petition from the fans’ pressure group Exeter Chiefs 4 Change which demanded an end to the club’s use of “harmful imagery and branding”, which included a Native American headdress, saying there was no place for it in a predominantly white British environment.
I don't really follow club rugby, but I'm adopting the Chiefs as my team.
Are we now saying that we cannot mix cultures at all and we all have to have separate pristine cultures ? Sounds at best a rather miserable policy and at worse something the BNP /Islamic jihadis or Nazis would agree with.
I like the fact that, in that Guardian article, the journalist didn't ask an actual Maori about who should/shouldn't perform the Haka.
I've read about this before and as I recall the biggest beef Maori people* had was not that the Haka was done, it is part of New Zealand culture so it's not like the All Blacks are doing something alien, but that it used to be done so badly.
* Generally speaking, I'm sure there are some people who think that only Maori person should perform it.
Cultural appropriation, taken to its endpoint, is pretty much the end of sport (and much else, like cuisine, partying, etc). Enjoying and celebrating and incorporating other cultures is the one great undeniable benefit of multiculturalism. It is quintessentially jubiliant.
This is the opposite. It is a deadening puritanism. It sees sin everywhere.
It will not last, just as Puritanism did not last, but in the interim it can do terrible damage.
America is particularly prone to these mad fits of self-hating monasticism. See Prohibition.
According to the latest research Gospel music originated in the Scottish Hebrides so if cultural appropriation is not allowed African Americans should stop singing it.
It's a theory that's been around for a while. I don't think Hebrideans are much bothered. I attended a concert, Psalm and Soul, in Glasgow a few years ago and saw a few of my dad's pals from Lewis and Harris there. Said hello at the interval after the Lewis Weefree choir had sang, then they buggered off before the US Gospel choir did their stuff.
Well that would depend on whether you are of Scots Lowland descent (ie basically English) or, much less likely, of Highland Gaelic descent (in which case you might be more covetous of your artistic lineage).
This is how this works.
Lowland Scots are far removed from being English despite the desperate efforts to try and make it so.
Lookin how rampant the disease is in the USA, Latin America, the Subcontinent, etc, reinfection from abroad is a real risk. Particularly so for diaspora communities.
Then why do we not have quarantine? If they fail to impose that, or ban foreign travel, the government cannot then complain if we import cases from abroad.
The particular problem with the subcontinent is that the Government's current "quarantine" policy, even if fully complied with/enforced is not likely to be effective for them. Because large numbers of visitors from the subcontinent will likely be visiting and staying with family/relatives. And the rules as written currently don't require the individuals you are quarantining with to quarantine themselves.
I suspect the assumption is that that would be common sense but as we all know common sense isn't that common.
I get the argument. It is that the risk of a quarantining person having the virus is low. The risk of a quarantining person having the virus and staying with another person is lower. The risk of a quaranting and infected person staying with another person and passing the virus on is lower still. And the risk of that person transferring it to a third party lower....
The current policy is nonsensical if following a "zero Covid" policy. But that is not Government policy, and is therefore considered an acceptable risk. But that may change as the virus grows on the subcontinent.
The problem is that there are difficulties, politically, in producing a policy specifically for those coming from the subcontinent. It would be portrayed as racist.
Comments
In the UK we have 46 000 deaths from 301 000 infections, so about 14%. Even with only 10% of cases diagnosed that falls in the range.
If the virus mutates to the extent that it only causes death or serious long term health consequences to, say 0.1% of those it infects, how does the government of New Zealand go about shifting policy to accommodate that? Given how much their reputation is based actually on keeping the country COVID free? Or do the economic pressures just force their hand?
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/38/19064
The linguistic analysis is interesting as well?
https://www.abdn.ac.uk/pfrlsu/documents/PFRLSU/Alcorn_et_al_Emergence_of_Scots.pdf
New thread btw
The current policy is nonsensical if following a "zero Covid" policy. But that is not Government policy, and is therefore considered an acceptable risk. But that may change as the virus grows on the subcontinent.
The problem is that there are difficulties, politically, in producing a policy specifically for those coming from the subcontinent. It would be portrayed as racist.