Jump to content

Recommended Posts



Moral relativism is a brilliant concept. I would also like to take a nuanced view of the Holocaust, six million dead but the train service was top notch. The conquistadors in Latin America, millions dead from small pox but many now speak Spanish and where would they be without the church which justified slavery for the indigenous people.http://youtu.be/0S2NKlMW0vc

woodrot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> more idiots

>

> http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/60680000/jpg

> /_60680351_unionjackbowlerhat.jpg

>

> http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02238/

> BRITAIN-QUEEN_2238082k.jpg


Somehow I suspect you lie awake at night worrying that someone, somewhere is enjoying themselves.

Well Woody should worry about me then as I enjoy reading his somewhat OTT posts. As much as I find that I respect the Queen and quite like Phil, it's a bizarre world where people are born into a position of such authority and a lot of other people think it's great. It's actually just silly in my opinion. The royal family is really similar to an ongoing soap opera that people have grown attached to. That's about it.

Fabricio the Guido Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> >

> Moral relativism is a brilliant concept. I would

> also like to take a nuanced view of the Holocaust,

> six million dead but the train service was top

> notch. The conquistadors in Latin America,

> millions dead from small pox but many now speak

> Spanish and where would they be without the church

> which justified slavery for the indigenous

> people.http://youtu.be/0S2NKlMW0vc


Try to be more nuanced in your responses please - this is pathetic.

woodrot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > RosieH Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > Is it my imagination, or are people on here

> > > becoming more and more unhinged..?

> >

> > You want to pop over the the Guradian site and

> see

> > some of the mouth-frothing comments on there.

> The

> > 'republicanism is not dead' article is a

> > particularly wonderful collection of thoughts

> from

> > rationally challenged..

>

> TBF, if you want sense, then cat owning Guardian

> readers are probabaly not going to reap a

> bountiful harvest. Guardian readers are paper

> tigers.



Whereas you are a real tiger, are you tiger?

MM, does this count as a nuanced view? http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/willheaven/100048709/the-history-of-british-india-will-serve-david-cameron-well-as-long-as-he-doesnt-talk-about-it/

It is from the Daily Telegraph after all


One of the links in the article is to this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1770. I won't insist that we consider this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943 as there is still some dispute about the (British) administration's culpability.


I quote you:

"those of us capable of a more nuanced look at the world can see both the enormous benefits that came out of the Britsh Empire as well as the many negatives - tho' many of those negatives are only so in the light of today's mores and not, of themselves, absolutely wrong or evil."


and ask two questions

man-made famines - are these an example of what is no longer negative "in the light of today's mores and not, of themselves, absolutely wrong or evil."?

benefits of Empire - yes, of course there were/are many, but you seem to be using ends to justify means. Do I understand you correctly?


No longer so easy to defend Empire. Even the Queen's advisers suggest she lay it to rest http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/honours-list/9249069/Queen-should-take-the-Empire-out-of-our-honours-system-say-Lord-Lieutenants.html,

civilservant Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> MM, does this count as a nuanced view?

> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/willheaven/10004

> 8709/the-history-of-british-india-will-serve-david

> -cameron-well-as-long-as-he-doesnt-talk-about-it/

>

> It is from the Daily Telegraph after all

>

> One of the links in the article is to this -

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1770

> . I won't insist that we consider this

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

> as there is still some dispute about the (British)

> administration's culpability.

>

> I quote you:

> "those of us capable of a more nuanced look at the

> world can see both the enormous benefits that came

> out of the Britsh Empire as well as the many

> negatives - tho' many of those negatives are only

> so in the light of today's mores and not, of

> themselves, absolutely wrong or evil."

>

> and ask two questions

> man-made famines - are these an example of what is

> no longer negative "in the light of today's mores

> and not, of themselves, absolutely wrong or

> evil."?

> benefits of Empire - yes, of course there were/are

> many, but you seem to be using ends to justify

> means. Do I understand you correctly?

>

> No longer so easy to defend Empire. Even the

> Queen's advisers suggest she lay it to rest

> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/honours-lis

> t/9249069/Queen-should-take-the-Empire-out-of-our-

> honours-system-say-Lord-Lieutenants.html,



Marginally more nuanced but it appears you still wish to paint the British Empire and all its works as irredeemably a bad thing. It wasn't. You misunderstand me - I was not trying to defend the indefensible, but trying to point out to those, such as Woodrot, that the world cannot be divided into Good / Bad; Right / Wrong; Left; Right as he seems to believe.


I did not say that the wrongs you raise as examples are simply seen as wrong by today's standards. Indeed I was trying to make the point that at least in certain instances the British recognised that they were in the wrong and started to change matters.


Remember Britain disengaged from what was then known as the Empire in a remarkably democratic fashion, handing over power and authority to the citizens of the many countries that now make up the Commonwealth, itself a positive organisation that is both democratic and a force for good in this world. Britain's handover didn't work well everywhere - the partition of India was clearly badly judged and mishandled, many African states fell into corruption and dictatorships but Britain didn't try to defend the impossible as France and Belgium did.

Thank you, MM, "marginally more nuanced" - I'm sure that the Daily Telegraph would so love to hear your endoresment!

Lovely also to share your knowledge of British Imperial disengagement policy at its highest level.


France and particularly Belgium as baselines for reference... hmmmm... Given that we still have a lot of explaining to do about the opium trade, the Malaysian Emergency, the Mau Mau rebellion - just to take some top-of-head examples at random - I agree that they are the only way to ensure that Britain comes out ahead of its co-players in the Imperial game.


I would be very interested to hear your explanation of why "many African states fell into corruption and dictatorships" - I'm really looking forward to it.

I find it hard to believe that anyone can try to make a moral claim for the Empire. Is Colonisation ever a good thing? Maybe for the colonisers but rarely will it be for the colonised. Hence, my comment about relativism,but I see that I should have just referenced the Telegraph rather than mention abstract concepts.


Britain didn't try and defend the indefensible : so what about Britain's support for Rhodesia and South Africa?

Imagine a world where Hiter or Stalin or Mao's Grankids still headed the show in their countries- there would be justifiable outrage.


Mass murderers offsping & desendents should not be allowed to profit from their relatives genocidal bent. Usually anyway.


The Royals are living off the proceeds of murder, rape and pillage on a global scale.


You welcome their contined presence, you are sneering at the slaughter of millions - both at home and overseas


Enjoy your celebrations.I hope you can wash the blood off your hands when its all over.

woodrot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Imagine a world where Hiter or Stalin or Mao's

> Grankids still headed the show in their countries-

> there would be justifiable outrage.

>

> Mass murderers offsping & desendents should not be

> allowed to profit from their relatives genocidal

> bent. Usually anyway.

>

> The Royals are living off the proceeds of murder,

> rape and pillage on a global scale.

>

> You welcome their contined presence, you are

> sneering at the slaughter of millions - both at

> home and overseas

>

> Enjoy your celebrations.I hope you can wash the

> blood off your hands when its all over.



Thanks having a wonderful time so far, long may it continue.

God Save The Queen

The Fascist Regime,

They Made You A Moron

A Potential H-Bomb.


God Save The Queen

She Ain't No Human Being.

There Is No Future

In England's Dreaming


Don't Be Told What You Want

Don't Be Told What You Need.

There's No Future

There's No Future

There's No Future For You


God Save The Queen

We Mean It Man

We Love Our Queen

God Saves


God Save The Queen

'Cos Tourists Are Money

And Our Figurehead

Is Not What She Seems


Oh God Save History

God Save Your Mad Parade

Oh Lord God Have Mercy

All Crimes Are Paid.


When There's No Future

How Can There Be Sin

We're The Flowers

In The Dustbin

We're The Poison

In Your Human Machine

We're The Future

You're Future


God Save The Queen

We Mean It Man

We Love Our Queen

God Saves



God Save The Queen

We Mean It Man

There Is No Future

In England's Dreaming


No Future

No Future For You

No Fufure For Me

file.php?20,file=52038


Real Republicans must be weary of the cynicism of Woodrot and his small following. Republicanism as a political theory posits that a Monarchy is not necessary because the wisdom and common sense of the citizens of any country can make a better stab at governing their country. Woodrot appear to turn that idea upside down - in his view it is the foolishness, naivety and sheeplike devotion to an outdated concept of British citizens (subjects?) that maintains the Monarchy. So rather than trusting the British people, Woodrot despises, insults and diminishes them.


His stance also ignores the evolution of the British Constitution - where the Monarchy has given up true power and authority to the democratically elected government in return for a its continuance as a symbol of continuity and history.

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ah, yes...

>

> 1977 - writing punk songs against the Queen and

> the establishment

>

> 2012 - advertising butter.

>

> They all come around in the end, don't they?


Well Loz it may surprise you that he made royalties (awful word :-)) in 77 and had a bank account. He must have sold out before he revolted!

He also used the NHS and roads paid for by road tax. You can still disagree with society even if you have to join in to survive. Next you will say the Syrian people have sold out because they go to government hospitals after being shot by the Army.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • A A day-school for girls and a boarding school for boys (even with, by the late '90s, a tiny cadre of girls) are very different places.  Though there are some similarities. I think all schools, for instance, have similar "rules", much as they all nail up notices about "potential" and "achievement" and keeping to the left on the stairs. The private schools go a little further, banging on about "serving the public", as they have since they were set up (either to supply the colonies with District Commissioners, Brigadiers and Missionaries, or the provinces with railway engineers), so they've got the language and rituals down nicely. Which, i suppose, is what visitors and day-pupils expect, and are expected, to see. A boarding school, outside the cloistered hours of lesson-times, once the day-pupils and teaching staff have been sent packing, the gates and chapel safely locked and the brochures put away, becomes a much less ambassadorial place. That's largely because they're filled with several hundred bored, tired, self-supervised adolescents condemned to spend the night together in the flickering, dripping bowels of its ancient buildings, most of which were designed only to impress from the outside, the comfort of their occupants being secondary to the glory of whatever piratical benefactor had, in a last-ditch attempt to sway the judgement of their god, chucked a little of their ill-gotten at the alleged improvement of the better class of urchin. Those adolescents may, to the curious eyes of the outer world, seem privileged but, in that moment, they cannot access any outer world (at least pre-1996 or thereabouts). Their whole existence, for months at a time, takes place in uniformity behind those gates where money, should they have any to hand, cannot purchase better food or warmer clothing. In that peculiar world, there is no difference between the seventh son of a murderous sheikh, the darling child of a ball-bearing magnate, the umpteenth Viscount Smethwick, or the offspring of some hapless Foreign Office drone who's got themselves posted to Minsk. They are egalitarian, in that sense, but that's as far as it goes. In any place where rank and priviilege mean nothing, other measures will evolve, which is why even the best-intentioned of committees will, from time to time, spawn its cliques and launch heated disputes over archaic matters that, in any other context, would have long been forgotten. The same is true of the boarding school which, over the dismal centuries, has developed a certain culture all its own, with a language indended to pass all understanding and attitiudes and practices to match. This is unsurprising as every new intake will, being young and disoriented, eagerly mimic their seniors, and so also learn those words and attitudes and practices which, miserably or otherwise, will more accurately reflect the weight of history than the Guardian's style-guide and, to contemporary eyes and ears, seem outlandish, beastly and deplorably wicked. Which, of course, it all is. But however much we might regret it, and urge headteachers to get up on Sundays and preach about how we should all be tolerant, not kill anyone unnecessarily, and take pity on the oiks, it won't make the blindest bit of difference. William Golding may, according to psychologists, have overstated his case but I doubt that many 20th Century boarders would agree with them. Instead, they might look to Shakespeare, who cheerfully exploits differences of sex and race and belief and ability to arm his bullies, murderers, fraudsters and tyrants and remains celebrated to this day,  Admittedly, this is mostly opinion, borne only of my own regrettable experience and, because I had that experience and heard those words (though, being naive and small-townish, i didn't understand them till much later) and saw and suffered a heap of brutishness*, that might make my opinion both unfair and biased.  If so, then I can only say it's the least that those institutions deserve. Sure, the schools themselves don't willingly foster that culture, which is wholly contrary to everything in the brochures, but there's not much they can do about it without posting staff permanently in corridors and dormitories and washrooms, which would, I'd suggest, create a whole other set of problems, not least financial. So, like any other business, they take care of the money and keep aloof from the rest. That, to my mind, is the problem. They've turned something into a business that really shouldn't be a business. Education is one thing, raising a child is another, and limited-liability corporations, however charitable, tend not to make the best parents. And so, in retrospect, I'm inclined not to blame the students either (though, for years after, I eagerly read the my Old School magazine, my heart doing a little dance at every black-edged announcement of a yachting tragedy, avalanche or coup). They get chucked into this swamp where they have to learn to fend for themselves and so many, naturally, will behave like predators in an attempt to fit in. Not all, certainly. Some will keep their heads down and hope not to be noticed while others, if they have a particular talent, might find that it protects them. But that leaves more than enough to keep the toxic culture alive, and it is no surprise at all that when they emerge they appear damaged to the outside world. For that's exactly what they are. They might, and sometimes do, improve once returned to the normal stream of life if given time and support, and that's good. But the damage lasts, all the same, and isn't a reason to vote for them. * Not, if it helps to disappoint any lawyers, at Dulwich, though there's nothing in the allegations that I didn't instantly recognise, 
    • Another recommendation for Lorraine  - if you need help over the holidays, she still has a small amount of availability. Couldn’t recommend her more highly, she’s brilliant with our cat. Message her on 07718 752208 for more details re pricing etc.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...