[ObSF] Megxit

[D B Davis]

As the British tabloid press has taken to sniping at the former Meghan Markle, for
no better reason than that by American standards she would be considered to be
black, she and her husband are in the process of distancing themselves from Royal
duties and taking up residence in Canada.

Canada's a poor choice. It has a long history of discrimination against
blacks.

[In 1857 at Tronoto, Williams] found that the Canadians were
getting sick and tired of the fugitive slaves whom the
Abolitionists were slipping across the border. These Negroes
looked "like a poor, cast-off forsaken race," and the cold
winters were sending many of them to their graves. When he
saw "so many wretched negroes without homes" and excluded
from the Canadian churches, railroads, and omnibuses, he
thought of the "Methodist Churches in Charleston, with
their six thousands happy colored members."

_George Walton Williams_ (Coulter)


Thank you,

☮

Thank you,

[Joe Bernstein]

As the British tabloid press has taken to sniping at the former Meghan
Markle, for no better reason than that by American standards she would
be considered to be black,

Nonsense. They have a much better reason, so much better that a few
hundred equivalent improvements would make it a good reason: putting
her on the cover sells papers and ads.

You might argue that the reason their stories are hostile rather than
friendly is that she's biracial, but it could also be because she's
American, because she's not Kate nee Middleton (ooh! a bigamy angle!),
because she's been known to use her neurons, any number of possible
reasons other than race. But I don't know whether any tabloids have
said anything clarifying this; maybe one of them has admitted that
race in fact drives their decisions.

she and her husband are in the process of
distancing themselves from Royal duties and taking up residence in
Canada.
This has occasioned much commotion.
It reminds me of an old book, perhaps better classed as fantasy than
as science- fiction... it had elements of both. A man on his deathbed,
with a history of opium use, has visions of the future... and in this
future, there are aircraft with design characteristics in advance of
those known at the time of writing.
I am speaking, of course, of "In the Wet", by N. S. Norway under his
pen name of Nevil Shute.
As the Australians have not yet set an example of "political
advancement" by adopting the multiple vote, of course, adopting it
isn't what it would take for Britain to bring them back. Since the
newspapers, not the government, are the problem, I suppose one could
imagine a system where people pay a pound for a copy of a newspaper,
but the money goes into a pool, and the newspaper recieves shares in
proportion to the "multiple credit" rank of the purchaser... thus
making it more profitable for newspapers to publish for the
socially-responsible.

I don't understand this final paragraph at all. Separately, I also
don't see whether, in this post, you stated anything that would make
it clear, to someone who *did* understand the final paragraph, why
the current situation reminded you of that book. My best guess is
that it has something to do with the final paragraph's last sentences,
which might concern the press in some way.

Joe Bernstein\

[Quadibloc]

SPOILER ALERT for "In the Wet" by Nevil Shute

Post by Joe Bernstein

As the Australians have not yet set an example of "political
advancement" by adopting the multiple vote, of course, adopting it
isn't what it would take for Britain to bring them back. Since the
newspapers, not the government, are the problem, I suppose one could
imagine a system where people pay a pound for a copy of a newspaper,
but the money goes into a pool, and the newspaper recieves shares in
proportion to the "multiple credit" rank of the purchaser... thus
making it more profitable for newspapers to publish for the
socially-responsible.

I don't understand this final paragraph at all. Separately, I also
don't see whether, in this post, you stated anything that would make
it clear, to someone who *did* understand the final paragraph, why
the current situation reminded you of that book. My best guess is
that it has something to do with the final paragraph's last sentences,
which might concern the press in some way.

I apologize for the lack of context. If you haven't read the book "In the Wet"
by Nevil Shute, my final paragraph indeed might be mystifying. But if you had,
it should be crystal-clear.

SPOILER ALERT for "In the Wet" by Nevil Shute.

The main subject of this novel is a political crisis in the United Kingdom.

It is governed by a near-Marxist Labor Party which is hurting the nation by
stirring up class division.

A solution to the crisis exists. Australia has implemented an innovative
electoral system. Instead of "one man, one vote", it is now "one man, up to
seven votes". One basic vote for everyone. An extra vote for having children. An
extra vote for being educated. An extra vote for serving in the military. And a
"Seventh Vote" which is a special Royal honor.

The Queen is going to use the emotional power of her office to persuade the
British masses to consent to this restructuring. By leaving Britain, and
informing the British people that she will spend less time in Britain, but how
much would depend on its "political advancement", that is, if Britain adopts the
multiple vote, she will come back there and spend more time there.

There is a nefarious Labor plot to stop her, and the novel's hero sneaks her out
in an advanced fast plane, which is the ostensible action plot of the story.

* * *

Now, back to my post.

The problem isn't that the British government is bad to Meghan, it's that some
elements of the British press are bad to Meghan.

So instead of a multiple-vote system that gives wise Britons more influence on
politics, an analogous system for the pounds with which people vote when buying
newspapers.

Of course, a newspaper would cost about ten times as much if it weren't for ad
revenue, so this wouldn't really be a workable idea.

John Savard

[Joe Bernstein]

Post by D B Davis

As the British tabloid press has taken to sniping at the former
Meghan Markle, for no better reason than that by American standards
she would be considered to be black, she and her husband are in the
process of distancing themselves from Royal duties and taking up
residence in Canada.

Canada's a poor choice. It has a long history of discrimination
against blacks.

As opposed to, um, ...

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-speaking_population>

US - oops
UK - oops
Canada - oops, you say
Australia - oops
South Africa - OOPS
Ireland - maybe, but isn't it awfully handy to the UK press?
New Zealand - oops

By this point we're getting pretty far down in numbers of native
English speakers, but the next three are Jamaica, Singapore, and
Trinidad and Tobago. I'm not sure any of them is racial heaven
either.

If we go by *total* English speakers, the numbers get somewhat more
fictional, but after the US India is #2, nope, no race trouble there,
then Nigeria, where I should think *his* ethnicity would be the
problem, then Pakistan, then China. After that the Philippines,
whose numbers I know to be essentially fictional because I put them
there myself (see the footnotes), and then finally the UK.

So tell me. What would be a *good* choice here? The traditional one
is France, but in the time of Brexit, seems to me that would be
remarkably impolitic. I would guess part of the deal with the rest
of the family is to stay within the Commonwealth, too (which would
exclude the US, Ireland, China and the Philippines as well).

Joe Bernstein

[J. Clarke]

On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 02:12:03 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein

Post by Joe Bernstein

Post by D B Davis

As the British tabloid press has taken to sniping at the former
Meghan Markle, for no better reason than that by American standards
she would be considered to be black, she and her husband are in the
process of distancing themselves from Royal duties and taking up
residence in Canada.

Canada's a poor choice. It has a long history of discrimination
against blacks.

As opposed to, um, ...
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-speaking_population>
US - oops
UK - oops
Canada - oops, you say
Australia - oops
South Africa - OOPS

How is South Africa "oops"? Apartheid ended more than 20 years ago,
the majority party is the African National Congress, and whites have
been jailed and heavily fined for making racist comments.

Post by Joe Bernstein
Ireland - maybe, but isn't it awfully handy to the UK press?
New Zealand - oops
By this point we're getting pretty far down in numbers of native
English speakers, but the next three are Jamaica, Singapore, and
Trinidad and Tobago. I'm not sure any of them is racial heaven
either.

If you've ever been to Jamaica you'll know that white faces are rare.
It's at most 1.1 percent white--there may be one or two white members
of parliament but they would be a very tiny minority. It is certainly
not a place where being black confers any kind of social stigma.

Post by Joe Bernstein
If we go by *total* English speakers, the numbers get somewhat more
fictional, but after the US India is #2, nope, no race trouble there,
then Nigeria, where I should think *his* ethnicity would be the
problem, then Pakistan, then China. After that the Philippines,
whose numbers I know to be essentially fictional because I put them
there myself (see the footnotes), and then finally the UK.
So tell me. What would be a *good* choice here? The traditional one
is France, but in the time of Brexit, seems to me that would be
remarkably impolitic. I would guess part of the deal with the rest
of the family is to stay within the Commonwealth, too (which would
exclude the US, Ireland, China and the Philippines as well).
Joe Bernstein

[Joe Bernstein]

Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 02:12:03 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein

Post by Joe Bernstein

Post by D B Davis

As the British tabloid press has taken to sniping at the former
Meghan Markle, for no better reason than that by American standards
she would be considered to be black, she and her husband are in the
process of distancing themselves from Royal duties and taking up
residence in Canada.

Canada's a poor choice. It has a long history of discrimination
against blacks.

As opposed to, um, ...
South Africa - OOPS

How is South Africa "oops"? Apartheid ended more than 20 years ago,
the majority party is the African National Congress, and whites have
been jailed and heavily fined for making racist comments.

Canada isn't being accused on the basis of its current reality, but
because it has a "long history". Well, what's the long history of
South Africa?

-- JLB

[D B Davis]

Post by Joe Bernstein

Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 02:12:03 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein

Post by Joe Bernstein

Post by D B Davis

As the British tabloid press has taken to sniping at the former
Meghan Markle, for no better reason than that by American standards
she would be considered to be black, she and her husband are in the
process of distancing themselves from Royal duties and taking up
residence in Canada.

Canada's a poor choice. It has a long history of discrimination
against blacks.

As opposed to, um, ...
South Africa - OOPS

How is South Africa "oops"? Apartheid ended more than 20 years ago,
the majority party is the African National Congress, and whites have
been jailed and heavily fined for making racist comments.

Canada isn't being accused on the basis of its current reality, but
because it has a "long history". Well, what's the long history of
South Africa?

OK, if the OP isn't informed by history let's talk "current reality."
What's the current reality of "American standards?"

☮

Thank you,

[David DeLaney]

Post by D B Davis
OK, if the OP isn't informed by history let's talk "current reality."
What's the current reality of "American standards?"

There's still widespread, if fairly subtle in places, discrimination against
anyone with skin medium-caramel color or darker, which the US lumps together
into "black" in general. Things are much better than they were 50 years ago,
and better than 20 years ago, even ... but it's a continuing process, nowhere
near perfect or colorblind yet almost anywhere here.

Meghan Markle doesn't really fall under that. She looks most like what a
"white, suntanned Indian-descent [Asian continent]" person would look like;
she doesn't twig the triggers that make Americans say "oh, she's black". So
this is sort of a red herring here.

Dave, or maybe a white elephant in a room?

[Paul S Person]

On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 05:32:15 -0600, David DeLaney

Post by David DeLaney

Post by D B Davis
OK, if the OP isn't informed by history let's talk "current reality."
What's the current reality of "American standards?"

There's still widespread, if fairly subtle in places, discrimination against
anyone with skin medium-caramel color or darker, which the US lumps together
into "black" in general. Things are much better than they were 50 years ago,
and better than 20 years ago, even ... but it's a continuing process, nowhere
near perfect or colorblind yet almost anywhere here.

Consider the film of /The Hunger Games/.

This, apparently, drew a lot of negative comment in some quarters for
daring to cast persons with dark skins in some roles. Apparently, the
alt-right regarded the book as some sort of Paradise, which is a bit
wierd, all things considered.

But consider Katniss' Stylist: he was /played/ by an African-American,
to be sure, but he is a resident of the /Capitol/, where skin color is
a stylistic decision.

I suggest that that is a better goal: a world where head coverings,
outer garments, other cultural traits, skin color, and so on are
matters of style which anyone can adopt or not as they choose. And
change whenever they want.

[David Johnston]

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 05:32:15 -0600, David DeLaney

Post by David DeLaney

Post by D B Davis
OK, if the OP isn't informed by history let's talk "current reality."
What's the current reality of "American standards?"

There's still widespread, if fairly subtle in places, discrimination against
anyone with skin medium-caramel color or darker, which the US lumps together
into "black" in general. Things are much better than they were 50 years ago,
and better than 20 years ago, even ... but it's a continuing process, nowhere
near perfect or colorblind yet almost anywhere here.

Consider the film of /The Hunger Games/.
This, apparently, drew a lot of negative comment in some quarters for
daring to cast persons with dark skins in some roles. Apparently, the
alt-right regarded the book as some sort of Paradise, which is a bit
wierd, all things considered.

That's because it's an inaccurate characterization. Of course they
regard it as the dystopia it ia. The complains were about a particular
character, the youngest of the gladiators who dies in a tear jerking
scene and was played in the movie by a black girl. Since certain
readers had overlooked the passing mention of her "dark" skin in the
original text or interpreted that as meaning that she was Italian or
something, they'd defaulted to the assumption that was of European
extraction and thus interpreted the casting as another case of a black
actor being cast in a "white" role.

[D B Davis]

Post by David DeLaney

Post by D B Davis
OK, if the OP isn't informed by history let's talk "current reality."
What's the current reality of "American standards?"

There's still widespread, if fairly subtle in places, discrimination against
anyone with skin medium-caramel color or darker, which the US lumps together
into "black" in general. Things are much better than they were 50 years ago,
and better than 20 years ago, even ... but it's a continuing process, nowhere
near perfect or colorblind yet almost anywhere here.
Meghan Markle doesn't really fall under that. She looks most like what a
"white, suntanned Indian-descent [Asian continent]" person would look like;
she doesn't twig the triggers that make Americans say "oh, she's black". So
this is sort of a red herring here.
Dave, or maybe a white elephant in a room?

Might you indulge me in a non sequitur? Despite my best efforts to put
my energy into a _The Eyes of Heisenberg_ and _Mortal Fear_ double
feature review, this thread keeps pulling me back like a fly (which
probably says something about the analog of the thread itself). This
_Eyes_ excerpt was stumbled across only moments ago in my review's
runup:

Potter sighed, thinking, /How ignorant a man can become on
a diet of managed history./ He wondered then how his own diet
had been adjusted and managed.

Indeed.

☮

Thank you,

[Chrysi Cat]

Post by D B Davis

Post by David DeLaney

Post by D B Davis
OK, if the OP isn't informed by history let's talk "current reality."
What's the current reality of "American standards?"

There's still widespread, if fairly subtle in places, discrimination against
anyone with skin medium-caramel color or darker, which the US lumps together
into "black" in general. Things are much better than they were 50 years ago,
and better than 20 years ago, even ... but it's a continuing process, nowhere
near perfect or colorblind yet almost anywhere here.
Meghan Markle doesn't really fall under that. She looks most like what a
"white, suntanned Indian-descent [Asian continent]" person would look like;
she doesn't twig the triggers that make Americans say "oh, she's black". So
this is sort of a red herring here.
Dave, or maybe a white elephant in a room?

Might you indulge me in a non sequitur? Despite my best efforts to put
my energy into a _The Eyes of Heisenberg_ and _Mortal Fear_ double
feature review, this thread keeps pulling me back like a fly (which
probably says something about the analog of the thread itself). This
_Eyes_ excerpt was stumbled across only moments ago in my review's
Potter sighed, thinking, /How ignorant a man can become on
a diet of managed history./ He wondered then how his own diet
had been adjusted and managed.
Indeed.
☮
Thank you,

_Mortal Fear_? I suppose it _is_ SF-adjacent as a technothriller with
currently unobtainable (and frightening! med-tech) if not full-on. Robin
Cook's not the first name I think of in a SFnal context though. (It was
also my introduction, as a Reader's Digest Condensed Book that got
shipped to my parents' house, to techno-thrillers as a whole, so I have
some nostalgia value going here.)

Or is there a film or another novel that bears that name that I'm
letting slip my mind?

[J. Clarke]

On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 04:21:15 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein

Post by Joe Bernstein

Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 02:12:03 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein

Post by Joe Bernstein

Post by D B Davis

As the British tabloid press has taken to sniping at the former
Meghan Markle, for no better reason than that by American standards
she would be considered to be black, she and her husband are in the
process of distancing themselves from Royal duties and taking up
residence in Canada.

Canada's a poor choice. It has a long history of discrimination
against blacks.

As opposed to, um, ...
South Africa - OOPS

How is South Africa "oops"? Apartheid ended more than 20 years ago,
the majority party is the African National Congress, and whites have
been jailed and heavily fined for making racist comments.

Canada isn't being accused on the basis of its current reality, but
because it has a "long history". Well, what's the long history of
South Africa?

The long history is 100,000 years of occupation by assorted tribes,
with a couple of hundred years where the white one became dominant and
then lost its dominance. Barring invasion by a superpower, the white
tribe is unlikely to regain ascendance in the foreseeable future.

[J. Clarke]

On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 22:08:54 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein

Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 04:21:15 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein

Post by Joe Bernstein

Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 02:12:03 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein

Post by Joe Bernstein

Post by D B Davis
Canada's a poor choice. It has a long history of discrimination
against blacks.

As opposed to, um, ...
South Africa - OOPS

How is South Africa "oops"? Apartheid ended more than 20 years ago,
the majority party is the African National Congress, and whites have
been jailed and heavily fined for making racist comments.

Canada isn't being accused on the basis of its current reality, but
because it has a "long history". Well, what's the long history of
South Africa?

The long history is 100,000 years of occupation by assorted tribes,
with a couple of hundred years where the white one became dominant and
then lost its dominance. Barring invasion by a superpower, the white
tribe is unlikely to regain ascendance in the foreseeable future.

<crap about the definition of history and pedantry about when the first humans appeared in South Africa snipped>
<pedantic crap about when Canadian history started snipped>
In this context, I'm not sure racism 150 years ago actually counts as
"long history", but let's say it does.

When you are dealing with a timeline that, since you insist on the
pedantic "when it first appeared in a book" definition of "history"
when discussing timelines that go back to before the last
interglacial, 150 years is not a "long history".

I haven't paid as much attention to South African history, but it
seems to have a similar 15th / 17th century thing going on, and I'm
guessing this enables reasonably full quasi-historical pictures of
the 15th-16th centuries there too.

Which, in the typical manner of typical white Western male college
professors, ignores 100,000 years of prior events (or 200,000 if you
insist although why you think it makes a difference is irrelevant).

I'm not really up, today, to parsing which was worse when, of the US
versus South Africa - and it's true that I should've capitalised
"OOPS" for the US as well, considering that we were still doing
chattel slavery at the time of the Canadian incident under discussion.
But it looks like most of the really famous racist institutions of
South Africa date to the 20th century, so I was probably wrong to
put them in the same bucket as whatever D. B. Davis is complaining
about in Canada.

You are wasting your time "parsing which was worse". We are talking
about now, today, not some other time.

All the same, I'd be willing to bet South African racism in the 1850s
was rather more like US racism in the 1850s than like Canadian ditto.
In particular, slavery seems to have been common in South Africa at
that time, which it certainly wasn't in Canada. So if our criterion
for a residence for the Sussexes is the climate of the 1850s, South
Africa (and the US) qualify as OOPS.

Our criterion is 2020, unless you live in a blue box and call yourself
"The Doctor".

On the other hand, South Africa today has, as you say elsewhere,
much greater institutional weight *against* racism than the US does;

Not necessarily. It has institutional weight against racism directed
at blacks by whites. Going the other way around, while on paper there
is no difference it is not clear to me what the reality is.

also, it's in the Commonwealth, which, as I say elsewhere, would
probably help these particular migrants. So it's clearly a better
choice for them than the US, in any world in which the 1850s aren't
the most pertinent consideration for choices of residence.

Well, for her possibly. I don't know about him.

[Joe Bernstein]

Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 22:08:54 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein

Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 04:21:15 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein

Post by Joe Bernstein
Canada isn't being accused on the basis of its current reality, but
because it has a "long history". Well, what's the long history of
South Africa?

The long history is 100,000 years of occupation by assorted tribes,
with a couple of hundred years where the white one became dominant
and then lost its dominance. Barring invasion by a superpower, the
white tribe is unlikely to regain ascendance in the foreseeable
future.

['>' snipped to clarify attributions]

Post by J. Clarke
<crap about the definition of history and pedantry about when the
first humans appeared in South Africa snipped>
<pedantic crap about when Canadian history started snipped>

In this context, I'm not sure racism 150 years ago actually counts as
"long history", but let's say it does.

When you are dealing with a timeline that, since you insist on the
pedantic "when it first appeared in a book" definition of "history"
when discussing timelines that go back to before the last
interglacial, 150 years is not a "long history".

I haven't paid as much attention to South African history, but it
seems to have a similar 15th / 17th century thing going on, and I'm
guessing this enables reasonably full quasi-historical pictures of
the 15th-16th centuries there too.

Which, in the typical manner of typical white Western male college
professors, ignores 100,000 years of prior events (or 200,000 if you
insist although why you think it makes a difference is irrelevant).

I'm sorry. Do you realise your 100,000 (or 200,000) years also
ignores several billion years of further prior events? [1]

Is there something specific to white Western male college professors
(my father was one, although I'm not) that enables them to think in
terms of limited contexts, but prevents others from doing so? I'm
not sure what rhetorical game exactly you're playing here, but am
astonished, considering your usual talk, to see you claiming my race
and sex are responsible for my being able to think clearly (to this
extent, anyhow). Are you quite sure you want to go there?

Joe Bernstein

[1] This is actually not just pedantry. The last time I tried to
study Korean history, I got derailed by the archaeology, which so
much did not make sense to me that I got *further* derailed by the
geology and plate tectonics, onto which I crashed. Sometimes, in
other words, those prior billions of years *do* matter to history.
But not always, not to every historical inquiry. Writing about the
Battle of Gettysburg doesn't normally require explaining why the
hills there are there. Or knowing when the region was first farmed.
ObSFnally, the issue leading to the crash is a Korean legend,
taken seriously by way too many historians, that says that circa 3000
BC the son of a god married a former bear, and their descendants are
the Korean people.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangun>
This is the basis for the very often seriously repeated claim that
Korean history (in the narrow sense, that is) goes back 5000 years.
So I was trying to figure out how definitely I could say that the
archaeology disproved this legend, which involves the issue of
absence of evidence vs evidence of absence, which leads back to major
flaws in Korean archaeology...

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 02:12:03 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein

Post by Joe Bernstein

Post by D B Davis

As the British tabloid press has taken to sniping at the former
Meghan Markle, for no better reason than that by American standards
she would be considered to be black, she and her husband are in the
process of distancing themselves from Royal duties and taking up
residence in Canada.

Canada's a poor choice. It has a long history of discrimination
against blacks.

As opposed to, um, ...
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-speaking_population>
US - oops
UK - oops
Canada - oops, you say
Australia - oops
South Africa - OOPS

How is South Africa "oops"? Apartheid ended more than 20 years ago,
the majority party is the African National Congress, and whites have
been jailed and heavily fined for making racist comments.

Post by Joe Bernstein
Ireland - maybe, but isn't it awfully handy to the UK press?
New Zealand - oops
By this point we're getting pretty far down in numbers of native
English speakers, but the next three are Jamaica, Singapore, and
Trinidad and Tobago. I'm not sure any of them is racial heaven
either.

If you've ever been to Jamaica you'll know that white faces are rare.
It's at most 1.1 percent white--there may be one or two white members
of parliament but they would be a very tiny minority. It is certainly
not a place where being black confers any kind of social stigma.

I don't think that there is even one MP who would be counted as 'white',
even loosely, in Jamaica. There may be a senator or two. The closest
thing would be a few of 'Syrian' or 'Lebanese' ethnicity and perhaps one
or two Azorean/Maderian. Maybe. There are a number of Chinese and Indian
ethnics. Barbados would be different. There's a reason why Barbados is
known to the rest of the English-speaking Caribbean as Little England.
(Note: 'Indian' to Jamaica and the English-speaking Caribbean includes
Pakistan and Burma and Sri Lanka, it's all one big India. In the same
way, 'Syrian' is any Arab, Muslim, Christian, Druze, Jewish, whatever,
who isn't Egyptian or Saudi, and has been known to include Turks and
Iranians. Jamaicans can't tell the difference and don't much care; those
who do care are regarded as being peculiar.) Famously Edward Phillip
George Seaga was 'Syrian' and an MP and PM, but he was a special case.
PMs since Eddie Seaga have included PJ Patterson and Portia
Simpson-Miller, and it's hard to get blacker than either of those two.
Especially PJ.

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Joe Bernstein
If we go by *total* English speakers, the numbers get somewhat more
fictional, but after the US India is #2, nope, no race trouble there,
then Nigeria, where I should think *his* ethnicity would be the
problem, then Pakistan, then China. After that the Philippines,
whose numbers I know to be essentially fictional because I put them
there myself (see the footnotes), and then finally the UK.
So tell me. What would be a *good* choice here? The traditional one
is France, but in the time of Brexit, seems to me that would be
remarkably impolitic. I would guess part of the deal with the rest
of the family is to stay within the Commonwealth, too (which would
exclude the US, Ireland, China and the Philippines as well).
Joe Bernstein

[Quadibloc]

Post by Joe Bernstein
So tell me. What would be a *good* choice here? The traditional one
is France,

And, in fact, despite a history of racial inequality, Canada is the #2 traditional
one after France, so it is actually a good choice.

As I pointed out, though, Meghan is really only "black" by U.S. standards. So if
one is going to go farther afield, I suppose there is Brazil. (Argentina would
be really impolitic.)

John Savard

[David DeLaney]

Post by Quadibloc
As I pointed out, though, Meghan is really only "black" by U.S. standards.

Again: no. No, she's not. Not at all.

Dave, you've dug your hole deep enough you can't see out of it, John. Stop.

[Quadibloc]

Post by David DeLaney

Post by Quadibloc
As I pointed out, though, Meghan is really only "black" by U.S. standards.

Again: no. No, she's not. Not at all.

Do you mean she is not black at all by any standards? I think I can document a
sixty-fourth part of what was once called "Negritude" if I have to.

Or do you mean she would be considered black anywhere, and I've just been
looking carelessly at the wrong photographs?

Or maybe the United States of America is really _not_ the only country so
bigoted that "passing" is a thing, and there are other examples.

Canada is by no means perfect when it comes to race, but in my experience,
someone who looked like Meghan wouldn't be noticed as being outside the majority
here - and I would have thought the same applies in the UK. However, apparently
her mother is just dark enough to be noticed. (Halle Berry, who someone else
mentioned, has sufficient black features, whatever the color of her skin might
be, that she could _not_ "pass".)

John Savard

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Joe Bernstein
So tell me. What would be a *good* choice here? The traditional one
is France,

And, in fact, despite a history of racial inequality, Canada is the #2 traditional
one after France, so it is actually a good choice.
As I pointed out, though, Meghan is really only "black" by U.S. standards. So if
one is going to go farther afield, I suppose there is Brazil. (Argentina would
be really impolitic.)
John Savard

I gather that she lived there in Canada for years
while appearing in _Suits_ and has friends there.

The assumption that they will continue to live
together is unproven. Separation and divorce
would mean that the British people, press and
establishment had won - again - and would give
the print media much more material. Again.

Also not necessarily tested legally is whether
the British royal family can have a few journalists
shot. That seems to me a happier solution, and
most of the lads can fly their own helicopter
gunship and maybe take out the whole lot at once.
I'm not judgemental, I just think that motivation
for better performance is called for.

By the way, are they still running the allegation
that Prince Harry has a different father?
I haven't seen it lately, but they don't let go
of things. "Meghan Markle married someone who
isn't really royal" is much less of a story though.

Wikipedia doesn't have "Citation needed" on his
parentage...

[Quadibloc]

Post by Robert Carnegie
The assumption that they will continue to live
together is unproven.

It may be unproven, but I was not aware there was even the slightest reason to
doubt this. Of course, were this couple to move to a part of Canada where black
bears and blackflies were a serious issue - as the Daily Mail noted as a
possibility - I suppose stress could be put on their relationship. However, I
expect that they have the resources to obtain better advice on where to locate
in Canada than that.

John Savard

[Kevrob]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Robert Carnegie
The assumption that they will continue to live
together is unproven.

It may be unproven, but I was not aware there was even the slightest reason to
doubt this. Of course, were this couple to move to a part of Canada where black
bears and blackflies were a serious issue - as the Daily Mail noted as a
possibility - I suppose stress could be put on their relationship. However, I
expect that they have the resources to obtain better advice on where to locate
in Canada than that.

If the Sussex couple moved to Sussex Dr, Ottawa, they might have to
deal with black face. :)

Kevin R

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Robert Carnegie
The assumption that they will continue to live
together is unproven.

It may be unproven, but I was not aware there was even the slightest reason to
doubt this. Of course, were this couple to move to a part of Canada where black
bears and blackflies were a serious issue - as the Daily Mail noted as a
possibility - I suppose stress could be put on their relationship. However, I
expect that they have the resources to obtain better advice on where to locate
in Canada than that.

According to tabloid information, she's left
the country and he hasn't, so they're separate
if not separated. Lovers don't do that.
Apparently they left the kid in Canada after
Christmas, so returning presumably was planned,
but current events apparently weren't.

And she's had a divorce from her previous marriage.
That doesn't make a serial divorcer unless she does
it again.

[h***@gmail.com]

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Robert Carnegie
The assumption that they will continue to live
together is unproven.

It may be unproven, but I was not aware there was even the slightest reason to
doubt this. Of course, were this couple to move to a part of Canada where black
bears and blackflies were a serious issue - as the Daily Mail noted as a
possibility - I suppose stress could be put on their relationship. However, I
expect that they have the resources to obtain better advice on where to locate
in Canada than that.

According to tabloid information, she's left
the country and he hasn't, so they're separate
if not separated. Lovers don't do that.

When we moved from South Australia to Tasmania in the mid 80s my father bought a medical practice in Tasmania and came over here about 6 months or so before the rest of the family moved down
My parents stayed together until my father died a few years ago.

If they were intending to separate it's hard to see why he would be giving up the royal title.

Post by Robert Carnegie
Apparently they left the kid in Canada after
Christmas, so returning presumably was planned,
but current events apparently weren't.

[Jay E. Morris]

Post by Robert Carnegie
According to tabloid information, she's left
the country and he hasn't, so they're separate
if not separated. Lovers don't do that.
Apparently they left the kid in Canada after
Christmas, so returning presumably was planned,
but current events apparently weren't.

Hmm. In the years before I retired there were many times I was separated
from my bride for days or weeks by the job requirements. With our move
to Texas I ended up here two months before her when a job opened up
before her position moved. And then there was the Army. I guess all
this just shows we weren't really lovers.

[m***@sky.com]

As the British tabloid press has taken to sniping at the former Meghan Markle, for
no better reason than that by American standards she would be considered to be
black, she and her husband are in the process of distancing themselves from Royal
duties and taking up residence in Canada.
This has occasioned much commotion.
It reminds me of an old book, perhaps better classed as fantasy than as science-
fiction... it had elements of both. A man on his deathbed, with a history of opium
use, has visions of the future... and in this future, there are aircraft with
design characteristics in advance of those known at the time of writing.
I am speaking, of course, of "In the Wet", by N. S. Norway under his pen name of
Nevil Shute.
As the Australians have not yet set an example of "political advancement" by
adopting the multiple vote, of course, adopting it isn't what it would take for
Britain to bring them back. Since the newspapers, not the government, are the
problem, I suppose one could imagine a system where people pay a pound for a copy
of a newspaper, but the money goes into a pool, and the newspaper recieves shares
in proportion to the "multiple credit" rank of the purchaser... thus making it
more profitable for newspapers to publish for the socially-responsible.
John Savard

I heartily recommend "In the Wet" - very readable, like almost all Nevil Shute, and now interesting for getting almost all of its predictions dead wrong.

Of course newspapers _are_ paid different amounts for different customers, because you can sell advertising for more if your customers have more disposable income.

I haven't really been following Megxit, but to my unpracticed eyes her picture doesn't stand out as black in the same way that, for instance, Michelle Obama's would. Given that she is a foreign actress marrying a royal and then apparently persuading him to make major changes in his life, I think it is possible that colour is not the only prejudice invoked, if prejudice it is. Suggestions that their role changes from encouraging UK citizens to do various publicly approved things to making money from being famous in the manner of the Beckham's don't really sound like an improvement to me.

[P. Taine]

Post by m***@sky.com

As the British tabloid press has taken to sniping at the former Meghan Markle, for
no better reason than that by American standards she would be considered to be
black, she and her husband are in the process of distancing themselves from Royal
duties and taking up residence in Canada.
This has occasioned much commotion.
It reminds me of an old book, perhaps better classed as fantasy than as science-
fiction... it had elements of both. A man on his deathbed, with a history of opium
use, has visions of the future... and in this future, there are aircraft with
design characteristics in advance of those known at the time of writing.
I am speaking, of course, of "In the Wet", by N. S. Norway under his pen name of
Nevil Shute.
As the Australians have not yet set an example of "political advancement" by
adopting the multiple vote, of course, adopting it isn't what it would take for
Britain to bring them back. Since the newspapers, not the government, are the
problem, I suppose one could imagine a system where people pay a pound for a copy
of a newspaper, but the money goes into a pool, and the newspaper recieves shares
in proportion to the "multiple credit" rank of the purchaser... thus making it
more profitable for newspapers to publish for the socially-responsible.
John Savard

I heartily recommend "In the Wet" - very readable, like almost all Nevil Shute, and now interesting for getting almost all of its predictions dead wrong.
Of course newspapers _are_ paid different amounts for different customers, because you can sell advertising for more if your customers have more disposable income.
I haven't really been following Megxit, but to my unpracticed eyes her picture doesn't stand out as black in the same way that, for instance, Michelle Obama's would. Given that she is a foreign actress marrying a royal and then apparently persuading him to make major changes in his life, I think it is possible that colour is not the only prejudice invoked, if prejudice it is. Suggestions that their role changes from encouraging UK citizens to do various publicly approved things to making money from being famous in the manner of the Beckham's don't really sound like an improvement to me.

See:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/opinion/sunday/meghan-markle-prince-harry.html?searchResultPosition=1

for a take on reasons and racism.

P. Taine

[J. Clarke]

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by m***@sky.com

As the British tabloid press has taken to sniping at the former Meghan Markle, for
no better reason than that by American standards she would be considered to be
black, she and her husband are in the process of distancing themselves from Royal
duties and taking up residence in Canada.
This has occasioned much commotion.
It reminds me of an old book, perhaps better classed as fantasy than as science-
fiction... it had elements of both. A man on his deathbed, with a history of opium
use, has visions of the future... and in this future, there are aircraft with
design characteristics in advance of those known at the time of writing.
I am speaking, of course, of "In the Wet", by N. S. Norway under his pen name of
Nevil Shute.
As the Australians have not yet set an example of "political advancement" by
adopting the multiple vote, of course, adopting it isn't what it would take for
Britain to bring them back. Since the newspapers, not the government, are the
problem, I suppose one could imagine a system where people pay a pound for a copy
of a newspaper, but the money goes into a pool, and the newspaper recieves shares
in proportion to the "multiple credit" rank of the purchaser... thus making it
more profitable for newspapers to publish for the socially-responsible.
John Savard

I heartily recommend "In the Wet" - very readable, like almost all Nevil Shute, and now interesting for getting almost all of its predictions dead wrong.
Of course newspapers _are_ paid different amounts for different customers, because you can sell advertising for more if your customers have more disposable income.
I haven't really been following Megxit, but to my unpracticed eyes her picture doesn't stand out as black in the same way that, for instance, Michelle Obama's would.

Note that that might be lighting. Halle Berry doesn't stand out as
black unless she's cast as a character whose ethnicity is significant
to the story and photographed accordingly.

Post by m***@sky.com
Given that she is a foreign actress marrying a royal and then apparently persuading him to make major changes in his life, I think it is possible that colour is not the only prejudice invoked, if prejudice it is. Suggestions that their role changes from encouraging UK citizens to do various publicly approved things to making money from being famous in the manner of the Beckham's don't really sound like an improvement to me.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/opinion/sunday/meghan-markle-prince-harry.html?searchResultPosition=1
for a take on reasons and racism.
P. Taine

[David Johnston]

Post by D B Davis

As the British tabloid press has taken to sniping at the former Meghan Markle, for
no better reason than that by American standards she would be considered to be
black, she and her husband are in the process of distancing themselves from Royal
duties and taking up residence in Canada.

Canada's a poor choice. It has a long history of discrimination against
blacks.
[In 1857 at Tronoto, Williams] found that the Canadians were
getting sick and tired of the fugitive slaves whom the
Abolitionists were slipping across the border. These Negroes
looked "like a poor, cast-off forsaken race," and the cold
winters were sending many of them to their graves. When he
saw "so many wretched negroes without homes" and excluded
from the Canadian churches, railroads, and omnibuses, he
thought of the "Methodist Churches in Charleston, with
their six thousands happy colored members."
_George Walton Williams_ (Coulter)
Thank you,
☮
Thank you,

I see that you're up to date with all the hottest news straight off the
press.

[D B Davis]

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

As the British tabloid press has taken to sniping at the former Meghan Markle, for
no better reason than that by American standards she would be considered to be
black, she and her husband are in the process of distancing themselves from Royal
duties and taking up residence in Canada.

Canada's a poor choice. It has a long history of discrimination against
blacks.
[In 1857 at Tronoto, Williams] found that the Canadians were
getting sick and tired of the fugitive slaves whom the
Abolitionists were slipping across the border. These Negroes
looked "like a poor, cast-off forsaken race," and the cold
winters were sending many of them to their graves. When he
saw "so many wretched negroes without homes" and excluded
from the Canadian churches, railroads, and omnibuses, he
thought of the "Methodist Churches in Charleston, with
their six thousands happy colored members."
_George Walton Williams_ (Coulter)

I see that you're up to date with all the hottest news straight off the
press.

At least you're honest enough to include my excerpt. Only after sharing
such untaught history with the group was it made known to me that
history doesn't inform this thread.
Where do you find genuine "hot news" about "U.S. standards?" Is it
in British tabloids?

☮

Thank you,

[David Johnston]

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

As the British tabloid press has taken to sniping at the former Meghan Markle, for
no better reason than that by American standards she would be considered to

be

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

black, she and her husband are in the process of distancing themselves from Royal
duties and taking up residence in Canada.

Canada's a poor choice. It has a long history of discrimination against
blacks.
[In 1857 at Tronoto, Williams] found that the Canadians were
getting sick and tired of the fugitive slaves whom the
Abolitionists were slipping across the border. These Negroes
looked "like a poor, cast-off forsaken race," and the cold
winters were sending many of them to their graves. When he
saw "so many wretched negroes without homes" and excluded
from the Canadian churches, railroads, and omnibuses, he
thought of the "Methodist Churches in Charleston, with
their six thousands happy colored members."
_George Walton Williams_ (Coulter)

I see that you're up to date with all the hottest news straight off the
press.

At least you're honest enough to include my excerpt. Only after sharing
such untaught history with the group was it made known to me that
history doesn't inform this thread.

I'd think you'd be able to guess that it doesn't work to evaluate
current conditions and politics based on history a century and a half
past without needing to be told.

[D B Davis]

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

As the British tabloid press has taken to sniping at the former Meghan Markle, for
no better reason than that by American standards she would be considered to be
black, she and her husband are in the process of distancing themselves from Royal
duties and taking up residence in Canada.

Canada's a poor choice. It has a long history of discrimination against
blacks.
[In 1857 at Tronoto, Williams] found that the Canadians were
getting sick and tired of the fugitive slaves whom the
Abolitionists were slipping across the border. These Negroes
looked "like a poor, cast-off forsaken race," and the cold
winters were sending many of them to their graves. When he
saw "so many wretched negroes without homes" and excluded
from the Canadian churches, railroads, and omnibuses, he
thought of the "Methodist Churches in Charleston, with
their six thousands happy colored members."
_George Walton Williams_ (Coulter)

I see that you're up to date with all the hottest news straight off the
press.

At least you're honest enough to include my excerpt. Only after sharing
such untaught history with the group was it made known to me that
history doesn't inform this thread.

I'd think you'd be able to guess that it doesn't work to evaluate
current conditions and politics based on history a century and a half
past without needing to be told.

History shapes contemporary thought about current conditions. That's the
reason that the above history remains untaught. Note the visceral
reaction to it.

The myth expresses the deep inclinations of a society. Without
it, the masses would not cling to a certain civilization or its
process of development and crisis. It is a vigorous impulse,
strongly colored, irrational, and charged with all of man's
power to believe. It contains a religious element. In our
society the two great fundamental myths on which all other
myths rest are Science and History.

_Propaganda, The Formation of Men's Attitudes_ (Ellul)

☮

Thank you,

[David Johnston]

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

As the British tabloid press has taken to sniping at the former Meghan Markle, for
no better reason than that by American standards she would be considered to be
black, she and her husband are in the process of distancing themselves from Royal
duties and taking up residence in Canada.

Canada's a poor choice. It has a long history of discrimination against
blacks.
[In 1857 at Tronoto, Williams] found that the Canadians were
getting sick and tired of the fugitive slaves whom the
Abolitionists were slipping across the border. These Negroes
looked "like a poor, cast-off forsaken race," and the cold
winters were sending many of them to their graves. When he
saw "so many wretched negroes without homes" and excluded
from the Canadian churches, railroads, and omnibuses, he
thought of the "Methodist Churches in Charleston, with
their six thousands happy colored members."
_George Walton Williams_ (Coulter)

I see that you're up to date with all the hottest news straight off the
press.

At least you're honest enough to include my excerpt. Only after sharing
such untaught history with the group was it made known to me that
history doesn't inform this thread.

I'd think you'd be able to guess that it doesn't work to evaluate
current conditions and politics based on history a century and a half
past without needing to be told.

History shapes contemporary thought about current conditions.

A meaningless truism. It says nothing about exactly hoe it shapes
contemporary thought. Obviously it is impossible to predict what the
conditions will be 150 years into the future because 150 years is a hell
of a lot of history all of which will "shape" what conditions will be in
that future.

[D B Davis]

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

As the British tabloid press has taken to sniping at the former Meghan Markle, for
no better reason than that by American standards she would be considered to be
black, she and her husband are in the process of distancing themselves from Royal
duties and taking up residence in Canada.

Canada's a poor choice. It has a long history of discrimination against
blacks.
[In 1857 at Tronoto, Williams] found that the Canadians were
getting sick and tired of the fugitive slaves whom the
Abolitionists were slipping across the border. These Negroes
looked "like a poor, cast-off forsaken race," and the cold
winters were sending many of them to their graves. When he
saw "so many wretched negroes without homes" and excluded
from the Canadian churches, railroads, and omnibuses, he
thought of the "Methodist Churches in Charleston, with
their six thousands happy colored members."
_George Walton Williams_ (Coulter)

I see that you're up to date with all the hottest news straight off the
press.

At least you're honest enough to include my excerpt. Only after sharing
such untaught history with the group was it made known to me that
history doesn't inform this thread.

I'd think you'd be able to guess that it doesn't work to evaluate
current conditions and politics based on history a century and a half
past without needing to be told.

History shapes contemporary thought about current conditions.

A meaningless truism. It says nothing about exactly hoe it shapes
contemporary thought.

Given your deletion of my second excerpt your subconscious seems
strongly resistant to any explanation. Using different words, here's how
history shapes contemporary thought:

History creates myth. "Through the myth it creates, propaganda imposes a
complete range of intuitive knowledge, susceptible of only one
interpretation, unique and one-sided, and precluding any divergence.

Some feel that my words are divergent and must be excised. It reminds me
of that _Star Trek_ episode where citizens tell Kirk's landing party
that they're not of the body. For the present case, my words are not of
the body of accepted myth.

☮

Thank you,

[Kevrob]

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

As the British tabloid press has taken to sniping at the former Meghan Markle, for
no better reason than that by American standards she would be considered to be
black, she and her husband are in the process of distancing themselves from Royal
duties and taking up residence in Canada.

Canada's a poor choice. It has a long history of discrimination against
blacks.
[In 1857 at Tronoto, Williams] found that the Canadians were
getting sick and tired of the fugitive slaves whom the
Abolitionists were slipping across the border. These Negroes
looked "like a poor, cast-off forsaken race," and the cold
winters were sending many of them to their graves. When he
saw "so many wretched negroes without homes" and excluded
from the Canadian churches, railroads, and omnibuses, he
thought of the "Methodist Churches in Charleston, with
their six thousands happy colored members."
_George Walton Williams_ (Coulter)

I see that you're up to date with all the hottest news straight off the
press.

At least you're honest enough to include my excerpt. Only after sharing
such untaught history with the group was it made known to me that
history doesn't inform this thread.

I'd think you'd be able to guess that it doesn't work to evaluate
current conditions and politics based on history a century and a half
past without needing to be told.

History shapes contemporary thought about current conditions.

A meaningless truism. It says nothing about exactly hoe it shapes
contemporary thought.

Given your deletion of my second excerpt your subconscious seems
strongly resistant to any explanation. Using different words, here's how
History creates myth. "Through the myth it creates, propaganda imposes a
complete range of intuitive knowledge, susceptible of only one
interpretation, unique and one-sided, and precluding any divergence.
Some feel that my words are divergent and must be excised. It reminds me
of that _Star Trek_ episode where citizens tell Kirk's landing party
that they're not of the body. For the present case, my words are not of
the body of accepted myth.

With all "true history" (right...) opposing views and variants
now able to be archived for who-knows-how-long, given modern tech,
old, or even ancient grievances can, and probably will, be kept
alive, like a reference sample of a nearly extinct plague, or
the "seed vault" of heirloom varieties on the island, Spitsbergen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Global_Seed_Vault

People who are otherwise "non-racist" can still be accused
of benefiting from "institutional racism." What's the
"statute of limitations" on that?

--
Kevin R
a.a #2310

[D B Davis]

Post by Kevrob

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

As the British tabloid press has taken to sniping at the former Meghan Markle, for
no better reason than that by American standards she would be considered to be
black, she and her husband are in the process of distancing themselves from Royal
duties and taking up residence in Canada.

Canada's a poor choice. It has a long history of discrimination against
blacks.
[In 1857 at Tronoto, Williams] found that the Canadians were
getting sick and tired of the fugitive slaves whom the
Abolitionists were slipping across the border. These Negroes
looked "like a poor, cast-off forsaken race," and the cold
winters were sending many of them to their graves. When he
saw "so many wretched negroes without homes" and excluded
from the Canadian churches, railroads, and omnibuses, he
thought of the "Methodist Churches in Charleston, with
their six thousands happy colored members."
_George Walton Williams_ (Coulter)

I see that you're up to date with all the hottest news straight off the
press.

At least you're honest enough to include my excerpt. Only after sharing
such untaught history with the group was it made known to me that
history doesn't inform this thread.

I'd think you'd be able to guess that it doesn't work to evaluate
current conditions and politics based on history a century and a half
past without needing to be told.

History shapes contemporary thought about current conditions.

A meaningless truism. It says nothing about exactly hoe it shapes
contemporary thought.

Given your deletion of my second excerpt your subconscious seems
strongly resistant to any explanation. Using different words, here's how
History creates myth. "Through the myth it creates, propaganda imposes a
complete range of intuitive knowledge, susceptible of only one
interpretation, unique and one-sided, and precluding any divergence.
Some feel that my words are divergent and must be excised. It reminds me
of that _Star Trek_ episode where citizens tell Kirk's landing party
that they're not of the body. For the present case, my words are not of
the body of accepted myth.

With all "true history" (right...) opposing views and variants
now able to be archived for who-knows-how-long, given modern tech,
old, or even ancient grievances can, and probably will, be kept
alive, like a reference sample of a nearly extinct plague, or
the "seed vault" of heirloom varieties on the island, Spitsbergen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Global_Seed_Vault
People who are otherwise "non-racist" can still be accused
of benefiting from "institutional racism." What's the
"statute of limitations" on that?

Inet empowered back talk wreaks havoc on the status quo. In the words of
my favorite African American author and anthropologist, the sole black
student at an Ivy League college (no one's perfect) back in the day, the
politically incorrect Zora Neale Hurston:

"The only difficulty was that I was rated as sassy. I just
had to talk back at established authority and that
established authority hated backtalk worse than barbed-wire
pie."

☮

Thank you,

[J. Clarke]

Post by D B Davis

Post by Kevrob

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

As the British tabloid press has taken to sniping at the former Meghan Markle, for
no better reason than that by American standards she would be considered to be
black, she and her husband are in the process of distancing themselves from Royal
duties and taking up residence in Canada.

Canada's a poor choice. It has a long history of discrimination against
blacks.
[In 1857 at Tronoto, Williams] found that the Canadians were
getting sick and tired of the fugitive slaves whom the
Abolitionists were slipping across the border. These Negroes
looked "like a poor, cast-off forsaken race," and the cold
winters were sending many of them to their graves. When he
saw "so many wretched negroes without homes" and excluded
from the Canadian churches, railroads, and omnibuses, he
thought of the "Methodist Churches in Charleston, with
their six thousands happy colored members."
_George Walton Williams_ (Coulter)

I see that you're up to date with all the hottest news straight off the
press.

At least you're honest enough to include my excerpt. Only after sharing
such untaught history with the group was it made known to me that
history doesn't inform this thread.

I'd think you'd be able to guess that it doesn't work to evaluate
current conditions and politics based on history a century and a half
past without needing to be told.

History shapes contemporary thought about current conditions.

A meaningless truism. It says nothing about exactly hoe it shapes
contemporary thought.

Given your deletion of my second excerpt your subconscious seems
strongly resistant to any explanation. Using different words, here's how
History creates myth. "Through the myth it creates, propaganda imposes a
complete range of intuitive knowledge, susceptible of only one
interpretation, unique and one-sided, and precluding any divergence.
Some feel that my words are divergent and must be excised. It reminds me
of that _Star Trek_ episode where citizens tell Kirk's landing party
that they're not of the body. For the present case, my words are not of
the body of accepted myth.

With all "true history" (right...) opposing views and variants
now able to be archived for who-knows-how-long, given modern tech,
old, or even ancient grievances can, and probably will, be kept
alive, like a reference sample of a nearly extinct plague, or
the "seed vault" of heirloom varieties on the island, Spitsbergen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Global_Seed_Vault
People who are otherwise "non-racist" can still be accused
of benefiting from "institutional racism." What's the
"statute of limitations" on that?

Inet empowered back talk wreaks havoc on the status quo. In the words of
my favorite African American author and anthropologist, the sole black
student at an Ivy League college (no one's perfect) back in the day, the
"The only difficulty was that I was rated as sassy. I just
had to talk back at established authority and that
established authority hated backtalk worse than barbed-wire
pie."

Personally I never respected "organized authority" in any educational
institution enough to waste my time arguing with it. It was wrong, I
knew it was wrong, it was too stupid to ever understand why it was
wrong, the only fix for it was a bullet or a suitable application of
high explosive, and it wasn't worth that price.

[Titus G]

Post by J. Clarke
Personally I never respected "organized authority" in any educational
institution enough to waste my time arguing with it. It was wrong, I
knew it was wrong, it was too stupid to ever understand why it was
wrong, the only fix for it was a bullet or a suitable application of
high explosive, and it wasn't worth that price.

I am currently reading the Flashman series by George MacDonald Fraser.
Flashman was the cowardly contrast to Tom in Tom Brown's Schooldays and
is a fictional comedic character participating in real historical
events. One of these real events was a rebellion at the English school
of Rugby where explosives were used by 12 to 14 year boys and the local
militia were needed to settle it. (Wikipedia Rugby Rebellion should find
it.)
I was fascinated by the attitude that boys from high class families
regarded school teachers as their inferiors.

[David Johnston]

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

As the British tabloid press has taken to sniping at the former Meghan Markle, for
no better reason than that by American standards she would be considered to be
black, she and her husband are in the process of distancing themselves from Royal
duties and taking up residence in Canada.

Canada's a poor choice. It has a long history of discrimination against
blacks.
[In 1857 at Tronoto, Williams] found that the Canadians were
getting sick and tired of the fugitive slaves whom the
Abolitionists were slipping across the border. These Negroes
looked "like a poor, cast-off forsaken race," and the cold
winters were sending many of them to their graves. When he
saw "so many wretched negroes without homes" and excluded
from the Canadian churches, railroads, and omnibuses, he
thought of the "Methodist Churches in Charleston, with
their six thousands happy colored members."
_George Walton Williams_ (Coulter)

I see that you're up to date with all the hottest news straight off the
press.

At least you're honest enough to include my excerpt. Only after sharing
such untaught history with the group was it made known to me that
history doesn't inform this thread.

I'd think you'd be able to guess that it doesn't work to evaluate
current conditions and politics based on history a century and a half
past without needing to be told.

History shapes contemporary thought about current conditions.

A meaningless truism. It says nothing about exactly hoe it shapes
contemporary thought.

Given your deletion of my second excerpt your subconscious seems
strongly resistant to any explanation. Using different words, here's how
History creates myth. "Through the myth it creates, propaganda imposes a
complete range of intuitive knowledge, susceptible of only one
interpretation, unique and one-sided, and precluding any divergence.

Did you have a point to make?

[D B Davis]

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

As the British tabloid press has taken to sniping at the former Meghan Markle, for
no better reason than that by American standards she would be considered to be
black, she and her husband are in the process of distancing themselves from Royal
duties and taking up residence in Canada.

Canada's a poor choice. It has a long history of discrimination against
blacks.
[In 1857 at Tronoto, Williams] found that the Canadians were
getting sick and tired of the fugitive slaves whom the
Abolitionists were slipping across the border. These Negroes
looked "like a poor, cast-off forsaken race," and the cold
winters were sending many of them to their graves. When he
saw "so many wretched negroes without homes" and excluded
from the Canadian churches, railroads, and omnibuses, he
thought of the "Methodist Churches in Charleston, with
their six thousands happy colored members."
_George Walton Williams_ (Coulter)

I see that you're up to date with all the hottest news straight off the
press.

At least you're honest enough to include my excerpt. Only after sharing
such untaught history with the group was it made known to me that
history doesn't inform this thread.

I'd think you'd be able to guess that it doesn't work to evaluate
current conditions and politics based on history a century and a half
past without needing to be told.

History shapes contemporary thought about current conditions.

A meaningless truism. It says nothing about exactly hoe it shapes
contemporary thought.

Given your deletion of my second excerpt your subconscious seems
strongly resistant to any explanation. Using different words, here's how
History creates myth. "Through the myth it creates, propaganda imposes a
complete range of intuitive knowledge, susceptible of only one
interpretation, unique and one-sided, and precluding any divergence.

Did you have a point to make?

Yes. Although my arguments remain pointless to proles, who have better
things to do than ponder propaganda.

Propaganda inculcates a superiority complex into a nation's citizens. In
order to keep the myth of superiority alive, thought leaders must
carefully present a given nation's history to suppress ugly historic
events as much as possible. Otherwise a nation's intelligentsia may
doubt its own inculcated superiority and by extension, experience
qualms about both national and supranational policies that transcend
politics. Superiority complex erosion undermines the very foundation of
public mind mythos:

Through the myth it creates, propaganda imposes a complete
range of intuitive knowledge, susceptible of only one
interpretation, unique and one-sided, and precluding any
divergence.

At the very least, an awareness of Canada's omitted history enables
open minded Canadian intelligentsia to appreciate the wisdom of:

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

All of the above is pointless to proles.

☮

Thank you,

[David Johnston]

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

As the British tabloid press has taken to sniping at the former Meghan Markle, for
no better reason than that by American standards she would be considered to be
black, she and her husband are in the process of distancing themselves from Royal
duties and taking up residence in Canada.

Canada's a poor choice. It has a long history of discrimination against
blacks.
[In 1857 at Tronoto, Williams] found that the Canadians were
getting sick and tired of the fugitive slaves whom the
Abolitionists were slipping across the border. These Negroes
looked "like a poor, cast-off forsaken race," and the cold
winters were sending many of them to their graves. When he
saw "so many wretched negroes without homes" and excluded
from the Canadian churches, railroads, and omnibuses, he
thought of the "Methodist Churches in Charleston, with
their six thousands happy colored members."
_George Walton Williams_ (Coulter)

I see that you're up to date with all the hottest news straight off the
press.

At least you're honest enough to include my excerpt. Only after sharing
such untaught history with the group was it made known to me that
history doesn't inform this thread.

I'd think you'd be able to guess that it doesn't work to evaluate
current conditions and politics based on history a century and a half
past without needing to be told.

History shapes contemporary thought about current conditions.

A meaningless truism. It says nothing about exactly hoe it shapes
contemporary thought.

Given your deletion of my second excerpt your subconscious seems
strongly resistant to any explanation. Using different words, here's how
History creates myth. "Through the myth it creates, propaganda imposes a
complete range of intuitive knowledge, susceptible of only one
interpretation, unique and one-sided, and precluding any divergence.

Did you have a point to make?

Yes. Although my arguments remain pointless to proles, who have better
things to do than ponder propaganda.
Propaganda inculcates a superiority complex into a nation's citizens. In
order to keep the myth of superiority alive, thought leaders must
carefully present a given nation's history to suppress ugly historic
events as much as possible. Otherwise a nation's intelligentsia may
doubt its own inculcated superiority and by extension, experience
qualms about both national and supranational policies that transcend
politics. Superiority complex erosion undermines the very foundation of
Through the myth it creates, propaganda imposes a complete
range of intuitive knowledge, susceptible of only one
interpretation, unique and one-sided, and precluding any
divergence.
At the very least, an awareness of Canada's omitted history enables
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
All of the above is pointless to proles.

That's a lot of ranting. But it does nothing to establish that Meghan
Markle would actually experience problems living in Canada because some
Canadians didn't welcome refugees 150 years ago.

[h***@gmail.com]

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

As the British tabloid press has taken to sniping at the former Meghan Markle, for
no better reason than that by American standards she would be considered to be
black, she and her husband are in the process of distancing themselves from Royal
duties and taking up residence in Canada.

Canada's a poor choice. It has a long history of discrimination against
blacks.
[In 1857 at Tronoto, Williams] found that the Canadians were
getting sick and tired of the fugitive slaves whom the
Abolitionists were slipping across the border. These Negroes
looked "like a poor, cast-off forsaken race," and the cold
winters were sending many of them to their graves. When he
saw "so many wretched negroes without homes" and excluded
from the Canadian churches, railroads, and omnibuses, he
thought of the "Methodist Churches in Charleston, with
their six thousands happy colored members."
_George Walton Williams_ (Coulter)

I see that you're up to date with all the hottest news straight off the
press.

At least you're honest enough to include my excerpt. Only after sharing
such untaught history with the group was it made known to me that
history doesn't inform this thread.

I'd think you'd be able to guess that it doesn't work to evaluate
current conditions and politics based on history a century and a half
past without needing to be told.

History shapes contemporary thought about current conditions.

A meaningless truism. It says nothing about exactly hoe it shapes
contemporary thought.

Given your deletion of my second excerpt your subconscious seems
strongly resistant to any explanation. Using different words, here's how
History creates myth. "Through the myth it creates, propaganda imposes a
complete range of intuitive knowledge, susceptible of only one
interpretation, unique and one-sided, and precluding any divergence.

Did you have a point to make?

Yes. Although my arguments remain pointless to proles, who have better
things to do than ponder propaganda.
Propaganda inculcates a superiority complex into a nation's citizens. In
order to keep the myth of superiority alive, thought leaders must
carefully present a given nation's history to suppress ugly historic
events as much as possible. Otherwise a nation's intelligentsia may
doubt its own inculcated superiority and by extension, experience
qualms about both national and supranational policies that transcend
politics. Superiority complex erosion undermines the very foundation of
Through the myth it creates, propaganda imposes a complete
range of intuitive knowledge, susceptible of only one
interpretation, unique and one-sided, and precluding any divergence.
At the very least, an awareness of Canada's omitted history enables
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
All of the above is pointless to proles.

That's a lot of ranting. But it does nothing to establish that Meghan
Markle would actually experience problems living in Canada because some
Canadians didn't welcome refugees 150 years ago.

It appears that D B Davis has about the same degree of relationship with the real world as Quaddie or Shawn

[D B Davis]

Post by h***@gmail.com
It appears that D B Davis has about the same degree of relationship
with the real world as Quaddie or Shawn

No one expects the stiff-necked scold's stern Shawn stigmatization
soliloquy!

☮

Thank you,

[Titus G]

On 17/01/20 10:05 am, David Johnston wrote:
snip

As the British tabloid press has taken to sniping at the
former Meghan Markle, for
no better reason than that by American standards she would be
considered to be
black,

Being black has not been mentioned in any reports I have read but I read
only the headlines before this thread.
A more recent article in the NZ online paper Stuff, ridiculed most of
the explosive Megxit headlines with contradictory headlines from
followup articles.

That's a lot of ranting.  But it does nothing to establish that Meghan
Markle would actually experience problems living in Canada because some
Canadians didn't welcome refugees 150 years ago.

The problems living in Britain were the hounding by the press and
expectations from the British Royal Family. Will either of those exist
in Canada?

[D B Davis]

<snip>

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis
[In 1857 at Tronoto, Williams] found that the Canadians were
getting sick and tired of the fugitive slaves whom the
Abolitionists were slipping across the border. These Negroes
looked "like a poor, cast-off forsaken race," and the cold
winters were sending many of them to their graves. When he
saw "so many wretched negroes without homes" and excluded
from the Canadian churches, railroads, and omnibuses, he
thought of the "Methodist Churches in Charleston, with
their six thousands happy colored members."
_George Walton Williams_ (Coulter)

<snip>

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston
Did you have a point to make?

Yes. Although my arguments remain pointless to proles, who have better
things to do than ponder propaganda.
Propaganda inculcates a superiority complex into a nation's citizens. In
order to keep the myth of superiority alive, thought leaders must
carefully present a given nation's history to suppress ugly historic
events as much as possible. Otherwise a nation's intelligentsia may
doubt its own inculcated superiority and by extension, experience
qualms about both national and supranational policies that transcend
politics. Superiority complex erosion undermines the very foundation of
Through the myth it creates, propaganda imposes a complete
range of intuitive knowledge, susceptible of only one
interpretation, unique and one-sided, and precluding any
divergence.
At the very least, an awareness of Canada's omitted history enables
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
All of the above is pointless to proles.

That's a lot of ranting. But it does nothing to establish that Meghan
Markle would actually experience problems living in Canada because some
Canadians didn't welcome refugees 150 years ago.

Hyperbole's necessary for untaught history to hit home. Now that we know
that Canada suffers from the same social afflictions as any other nation
there's no reason to believe that Canada offers safer sanctuary than any
other nation.

Your possible "prole" internalization is interesting. What you view as
a rant is me marshaling my thoughts.

"Sometimes it's difficult to keep momentum if it's you that
you are following." - _Evita_

☮

Thank you,

[J. Clarke]

Post by D B Davis
<snip>

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis
[In 1857 at Tronoto, Williams] found that the Canadians were
getting sick and tired of the fugitive slaves whom the
Abolitionists were slipping across the border. These Negroes
looked "like a poor, cast-off forsaken race," and the cold
winters were sending many of them to their graves. When he
saw "so many wretched negroes without homes" and excluded
from the Canadian churches, railroads, and omnibuses, he
thought of the "Methodist Churches in Charleston, with
their six thousands happy colored members."
_George Walton Williams_ (Coulter)

<snip>

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston
Did you have a point to make?

Yes. Although my arguments remain pointless to proles, who have better
things to do than ponder propaganda.
Propaganda inculcates a superiority complex into a nation's citizens. In
order to keep the myth of superiority alive, thought leaders must
carefully present a given nation's history to suppress ugly historic
events as much as possible. Otherwise a nation's intelligentsia may
doubt its own inculcated superiority and by extension, experience
qualms about both national and supranational policies that transcend
politics. Superiority complex erosion undermines the very foundation of
Through the myth it creates, propaganda imposes a complete
range of intuitive knowledge, susceptible of only one
interpretation, unique and one-sided, and precluding any divergence.
At the very least, an awareness of Canada's omitted history enables
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
All of the above is pointless to proles.

That's a lot of ranting. But it does nothing to establish that Meghan
Markle would actually experience problems living in Canada because some
Canadians didn't welcome refugees 150 years ago.

Hyperbole's necessary for untaught history to hit home. Now that we know
that Canada suffers from the same social afflictions as any other nation
there's no reason to believe that Canada offers safer sanctuary than any
other nation.
Your possible "prole" internalization is interesting. What you view as
a rant is me marshaling my thoughts.
"Sometimes it's difficult to keep momentum if it's you that
you are following." - _Evita_
?

I think it should be pointed out that Meghan Markle was born and spent
most of the first 30 years of her life in the United States without
apparently difficulty. It should also be pointed out that she was
living and working in Toronto at the time that she met Prince Harry,
again without apparent difficulty.

It should also be pointed out that haters gotta hate.

[m***@sky.com]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by D B Davis
<snip>

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis
[In 1857 at Tronoto, Williams] found that the Canadians were
getting sick and tired of the fugitive slaves whom the
Abolitionists were slipping across the border. These Negroes
looked "like a poor, cast-off forsaken race," and the cold
winters were sending many of them to their graves. When he
saw "so many wretched negroes without homes" and excluded
from the Canadian churches, railroads, and omnibuses, he
thought of the "Methodist Churches in Charleston, with
their six thousands happy colored members."
_George Walton Williams_ (Coulter)

<snip>

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston
Did you have a point to make?

Yes. Although my arguments remain pointless to proles, who have better
things to do than ponder propaganda.
Propaganda inculcates a superiority complex into a nation's citizens. In
order to keep the myth of superiority alive, thought leaders must
carefully present a given nation's history to suppress ugly historic
events as much as possible. Otherwise a nation's intelligentsia may
doubt its own inculcated superiority and by extension, experience
qualms about both national and supranational policies that transcend
politics. Superiority complex erosion undermines the very foundation of
Through the myth it creates, propaganda imposes a complete
range of intuitive knowledge, susceptible of only one
interpretation, unique and one-sided, and precluding any divergence.
At the very least, an awareness of Canada's omitted history enables
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
All of the above is pointless to proles.

That's a lot of ranting. But it does nothing to establish that Meghan
Markle would actually experience problems living in Canada because some
Canadians didn't welcome refugees 150 years ago.

Hyperbole's necessary for untaught history to hit home. Now that we know
that Canada suffers from the same social afflictions as any other nation
there's no reason to believe that Canada offers safer sanctuary than any
other nation.
Your possible "prole" internalization is interesting. What you view as
a rant is me marshaling my thoughts.
"Sometimes it's difficult to keep momentum if it's you that
you are following." - _Evita_
?

I think it should be pointed out that Meghan Markle was born and spent
most of the first 30 years of her life in the United States without
apparently difficulty. It should also be pointed out that she was
living and working in Toronto at the time that she met Prince Harry,
again without apparent difficulty.
It should also be pointed out that haters gotta hate.

While I doubt if Meghan Markle appears as obviously black in the UK, I have to admit that the stupidity that can be associated with prejudice is not to be underestimated. I met somebody (pre-911) who asked me if I had suffered from prejudice through being classed as Irish (I have not - you can't tell that from across the street and many people mis-identify my accent as Scots). He had encountered difficulty finding accommodation through being classed as black. He looked exactly like a stereotypical Saudi Prince, complete with short, neatly trimmed moustache and beard, and he was a British Citizen working within a defense industry, but of a family that had originally come from somewhere around Arabia, so an identification as Arab would at least have been understandable, but black? I mean, if you are going to discriminate on ethnic origin, at least get the ethnic origin right.

Finally, an ObSF - remember the scene in Harry Potter where Hermione gets called a mudblood and isn't greatly offended because she hasn't heard the term before, but Ron is deeply offended on her behalf? Well imagine an Indian (black as coal) on a night out with friends. He naturally thinks of himself as Indian, so he doesn't immediately understand a term of abuse and asks his friends "what is this word, Paki?" thus nearly starting a fight - fortunately he was too sensible a chap to let things get out of hand.

[J. Clarke]

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by J. Clarke

Post by D B Davis
<snip>

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis
[In 1857 at Tronoto, Williams] found that the Canadians were
getting sick and tired of the fugitive slaves whom the
Abolitionists were slipping across the border. These Negroes
looked "like a poor, cast-off forsaken race," and the cold
winters were sending many of them to their graves. When he
saw "so many wretched negroes without homes" and excluded
from the Canadian churches, railroads, and omnibuses, he
thought of the "Methodist Churches in Charleston, with
their six thousands happy colored members."
_George Walton Williams_ (Coulter)

<snip>

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston
Did you have a point to make?

Yes. Although my arguments remain pointless to proles, who have better
things to do than ponder propaganda.
Propaganda inculcates a superiority complex into a nation's citizens. In
order to keep the myth of superiority alive, thought leaders must
carefully present a given nation's history to suppress ugly historic
events as much as possible. Otherwise a nation's intelligentsia may
doubt its own inculcated superiority and by extension, experience
qualms about both national and supranational policies that transcend
politics. Superiority complex erosion undermines the very foundation of
Through the myth it creates, propaganda imposes a complete
range of intuitive knowledge, susceptible of only one
interpretation, unique and one-sided, and precluding any divergence.
At the very least, an awareness of Canada's omitted history enables
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
All of the above is pointless to proles.

That's a lot of ranting. But it does nothing to establish that Meghan
Markle would actually experience problems living in Canada because some
Canadians didn't welcome refugees 150 years ago.

Hyperbole's necessary for untaught history to hit home. Now that we know
that Canada suffers from the same social afflictions as any other nation
there's no reason to believe that Canada offers safer sanctuary than any
other nation.
Your possible "prole" internalization is interesting. What you view as
a rant is me marshaling my thoughts.
"Sometimes it's difficult to keep momentum if it's you that
you are following." - _Evita_
?

I think it should be pointed out that Meghan Markle was born and spent
most of the first 30 years of her life in the United States without
apparently difficulty. It should also be pointed out that she was
living and working in Toronto at the time that she met Prince Harry,
again without apparent difficulty.
It should also be pointed out that haters gotta hate.

While I doubt if Meghan Markle appears as obviously black in the UK, I have to admit that the stupidity that can be associated with prejudice is not to be underestimated. I met somebody (pre-911) who asked me if I had suffered from prejudice through being classed as Irish (I have not - you can't tell that from across the street and many people mis-identify my accent as Scots). He had encountered difficulty finding accommodation through being classed as black. He looked exactly like a stereotypical Saudi Prince, complete with short, neatly trimmed moustache and beard, and he was a British Citizen working within a defense industry, but of a family that had originally come from somewhere around Arabia, so an identification as Arab would at least have been understandable, but black? I mean, if you are going to discriminate on ethnic origin, at least get the ethnic origin right.
Finally, an ObSF - remember the scene in Harry Potter where Hermione gets called a mudblood and isn't greatly offended because she hasn't heard the term before, but Ron is deeply offended on her behalf? Well imagine an Indian (black as coal) on a night out with friends. He naturally thinks of himself as Indian, so he doesn't immediately understand a term of abuse and asks his friends "what is this word, Paki?" thus nearly starting a fight - fortunately he was too sensible a chap to let things get out of hand.

Note that being mistaken for a Pakistani could lead a person from
India into throwing punches, and vice versa.

Being called a "Paki" will lead to similar behavior from a Pakistani.
That has always troubled me. If they don't want to be called "Pakis"
then they really should change the name of their country to one with a
short form that they are willing to live with, possibly without a
"stan" on the end.

[Kevrob]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by J. Clarke

Post by D B Davis
<snip>

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis
[In 1857 at Tronoto, Williams] found that the Canadians were
getting sick and tired of the fugitive slaves whom the
Abolitionists were slipping across the border. These Negroes
looked "like a poor, cast-off forsaken race," and the cold
winters were sending many of them to their graves. When he
saw "so many wretched negroes without homes" and excluded
from the Canadian churches, railroads, and omnibuses, he
thought of the "Methodist Churches in Charleston, with
their six thousands happy colored members."
_George Walton Williams_ (Coulter)

<snip>

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston
Did you have a point to make?

Yes. Although my arguments remain pointless to proles, who have better
things to do than ponder propaganda.
Propaganda inculcates a superiority complex into a nation's citizens. In
order to keep the myth of superiority alive, thought leaders must
carefully present a given nation's history to suppress ugly historic
events as much as possible. Otherwise a nation's intelligentsia may
doubt its own inculcated superiority and by extension, experience
qualms about both national and supranational policies that transcend
politics. Superiority complex erosion undermines the very foundation of
Through the myth it creates, propaganda imposes a complete
range of intuitive knowledge, susceptible of only one
interpretation, unique and one-sided, and precluding any
divergence.
At the very least, an awareness of Canada's omitted history enables
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
All of the above is pointless to proles.

That's a lot of ranting. But it does nothing to establish that Meghan
Markle would actually experience problems living in Canada because some
Canadians didn't welcome refugees 150 years ago.

Hyperbole's necessary for untaught history to hit home. Now that we know
that Canada suffers from the same social afflictions as any other nation
there's no reason to believe that Canada offers safer sanctuary than any
other nation.
Your possible "prole" internalization is interesting. What you view as
a rant is me marshaling my thoughts.
"Sometimes it's difficult to keep momentum if it's you that
you are following." - _Evita_
?

I think it should be pointed out that Meghan Markle was born and spent
most of the first 30 years of her life in the United States without
apparently difficulty. It should also be pointed out that she was
living and working in Toronto at the time that she met Prince Harry,
again without apparent difficulty.
It should also be pointed out that haters gotta hate.

While I doubt if Meghan Markle appears as obviously black in the UK, I have to admit that the stupidity that can be associated with prejudice is not to be underestimated. I met somebody (pre-911) who asked me if I had suffered from prejudice through being classed as Irish (I have not - you can't tell that from across the street and many people mis-identify my accent as Scots). He had encountered difficulty finding accommodation through being classed as black. He looked exactly like a stereotypical Saudi Prince, complete with short, neatly trimmed moustache and beard, and he was a British Citizen working within a defense industry, but of a family that had originally come from somewhere around Arabia, so an identification as Arab would at least have been understandable, but black? I mean, if you are going to discriminate on ethnic origin, at least get the ethnic origin right.
Finally, an ObSF - remember the scene in Harry Potter where Hermione gets called a mudblood and isn't greatly offended because she hasn't heard the term before, but Ron is deeply offended on her behalf? Well imagine an Indian (black as coal) on a night out with friends. He naturally thinks of himself as Indian, so he doesn't immediately understand a term of abuse and asks his friends "what is this word, Paki?" thus nearly starting a fight - fortunately he was too sensible a chap to let things get out of hand.

Note that being mistaken for a Pakistani could lead a person from
India into throwing punches, and vice versa.
Being called a "Paki" will lead to similar behavior from a Pakistani.
That has always troubled me. If they don't want to be called "Pakis"
then they really should change the name of their country to one with a
short form that they are willing to live with, possibly without a
"stan" on the end.

The name is a neologism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan#Etymology

I've seen references to "the Paks," usually by military
types. Dropping the "i" is somehow less offensive?
Of course, sometimes originally neutral terms acquire
unfortunate connotations.

Almost no one in the US uses these terms for a fellow from
South Asia. Lunkheads will refer to a Sikh as a "damned Arab,"
which gives you an idea of average geographical and cultural
knowledge.

In New England, if that person runs a liquor store,
the "packy/packie" is the shop, not the owner. :)

https://www.thedailymeal.com/travel/20-things-only-people-new-england-say-slideshow/slide-20 n {#9)

Kevin R

[m***@sky.com]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by J. Clarke

Post by D B Davis
<snip>

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis
[In 1857 at Tronoto, Williams] found that the Canadians were
getting sick and tired of the fugitive slaves whom the
Abolitionists were slipping across the border. These Negroes
looked "like a poor, cast-off forsaken race," and the cold
winters were sending many of them to their graves. When he
saw "so many wretched negroes without homes" and excluded
from the Canadian churches, railroads, and omnibuses, he
thought of the "Methodist Churches in Charleston, with
their six thousands happy colored members."
_George Walton Williams_ (Coulter)

<snip>

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston
Did you have a point to make?

Yes. Although my arguments remain pointless to proles, who have better
things to do than ponder propaganda.
Propaganda inculcates a superiority complex into a nation's citizens. In
order to keep the myth of superiority alive, thought leaders must
carefully present a given nation's history to suppress ugly historic
events as much as possible. Otherwise a nation's intelligentsia may
doubt its own inculcated superiority and by extension, experience
qualms about both national and supranational policies that transcend
politics. Superiority complex erosion undermines the very foundation of
Through the myth it creates, propaganda imposes a complete
range of intuitive knowledge, susceptible of only one
interpretation, unique and one-sided, and precluding any
divergence.
At the very least, an awareness of Canada's omitted history enables
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
All of the above is pointless to proles.

That's a lot of ranting. But it does nothing to establish that Meghan
Markle would actually experience problems living in Canada because some
Canadians didn't welcome refugees 150 years ago.

Hyperbole's necessary for untaught history to hit home. Now that we know
that Canada suffers from the same social afflictions as any other nation
there's no reason to believe that Canada offers safer sanctuary than any
other nation.
Your possible "prole" internalization is interesting. What you view as
a rant is me marshaling my thoughts.
"Sometimes it's difficult to keep momentum if it's you that
you are following." - _Evita_
?

I think it should be pointed out that Meghan Markle was born and spent
most of the first 30 years of her life in the United States without
apparently difficulty. It should also be pointed out that she was
living and working in Toronto at the time that she met Prince Harry,
again without apparent difficulty.
It should also be pointed out that haters gotta hate.

While I doubt if Meghan Markle appears as obviously black in the UK, I have to admit that the stupidity that can be associated with prejudice is not to be underestimated. I met somebody (pre-911) who asked me if I had suffered from prejudice through being classed as Irish (I have not - you can't tell that from across the street and many people mis-identify my accent as Scots). He had encountered difficulty finding accommodation through being classed as black. He looked exactly like a stereotypical Saudi Prince, complete with short, neatly trimmed moustache and beard, and he was a British Citizen working within a defense industry, but of a family that had originally come from somewhere around Arabia, so an identification as Arab would at least have been understandable, but black? I mean, if you are going to discriminate on ethnic origin, at least get the ethnic origin right.
Finally, an ObSF - remember the scene in Harry Potter where Hermione gets called a mudblood and isn't greatly offended because she hasn't heard the term before, but Ron is deeply offended on her behalf? Well imagine an Indian (black as coal) on a night out with friends. He naturally thinks of himself as Indian, so he doesn't immediately understand a term of abuse and asks his friends "what is this word, Paki?" thus nearly starting a fight - fortunately he was too sensible a chap to let things get out of hand.

Note that being mistaken for a Pakistani could lead a person from
India into throwing punches, and vice versa.
Being called a "Paki" will lead to similar behavior from a Pakistani.
That has always troubled me. If they don't want to be called "Pakis"
then they really should change the name of their country to one with a
short form that they are willing to live with, possibly without a
"stan" on the end.

In "The Guns Above" the enemy country properly known as Vinzhalia is popularly called the "Vins". I conclude from this that the practice of abbreviating names to epithets is not solely a Britishism - we fought the Argies in the Falklands war and (amongst other names) the Jerries in two world wars (although I concede that Jerries is not an abbreviation). So I can hardly criticise Pakistanis for taking offense, especially as "Paki" was popular in Glasgow, where the local Pakistani population was not. OTOH I find that the "Brits" in "Brits go home" does not strike an emotional chord in me and a web search finds "Brits" used by Brits as well as against Brits.

I bought "The Guns Above" when I heard that it was, to some extent, in the image of Leary/Mundy and Aubrey/Maturin. There is a comparison there, but I was irritated by its stereotypical replay of WWI popular history - upper class twit officers fighting pointless wars - and it was more expensive than independent Amazon SF. Would I find that the series improves?

[Titus G]

On 19/01/20 9:13 am, ***@sky.com wrote:
I conclude from this that the practice of abbreviating names to
epithets is not solely a Britishism - we fought the Argies in the
Falklands war and (amongst other names) the Jerries in two world wars
(although I concede that Jerries is not an abbreviation).

"The name Jerry was possibly derived from the stahlhelm [german steel
helmet] introduced in 1916, which was said by British soldiers to
resemble a chamber pot or Jeroboam. Alternatively, it may be a simple
alteration of the word German."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terms_used_for_Germans#Jerry

[Quadibloc]

Post by J. Clarke
Being called a "Paki" will lead to similar behavior from a Pakistani.
That has always troubled me. If they don't want to be called "Pakis"
then they really should change the name of their country to one with a
short form that they are willing to live with, possibly without a
"stan" on the end.

Being called a Paki "offends" Pakistanis in Britain because it is an indicator
of what the person who calls them that thinks of them, not because of the sound
of it.

Since the N-word is derived from the same Latin word for "black" as Negro, had
relations between whites and blacks in the United States been different, it
could have become a term that caused no offence.

John Savard

[J. Clarke]

On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 22:16:04 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke
Being called a "Paki" will lead to similar behavior from a Pakistani.
That has always troubled me. If they don't want to be called "Pakis"
then they really should change the name of their country to one with a
short form that they are willing to live with, possibly without a
"stan" on the end.

Being called a Paki "offends" Pakistanis in Britain because it is an indicator
of what the person who calls them that thinks of them, not because of the sound
of it.
Since the N-word is derived from the same Latin word for "black" as Negro, had
relations between whites and blacks in the United States been different, it
could have become a term that caused no offence.

It only causes offense when used by a white person. Black people use
it to describe themselves and others of their race with impunity.

[h***@gmail.com]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by J. Clarke

Post by D B Davis
<snip>

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis
[In 1857 at Tronoto, Williams] found that the Canadians were
getting sick and tired of the fugitive slaves whom the
Abolitionists were slipping across the border. These Negroes
looked "like a poor, cast-off forsaken race," and the cold
winters were sending many of them to their graves. When he
saw "so many wretched negroes without homes" and excluded
from the Canadian churches, railroads, and omnibuses, he
thought of the "Methodist Churches in Charleston, with
their six thousands happy colored members."
_George Walton Williams_ (Coulter)

<snip>

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston
Did you have a point to make?

Yes. Although my arguments remain pointless to proles, who have better
things to do than ponder propaganda.
Propaganda inculcates a superiority complex into a nation's citizens. In
order to keep the myth of superiority alive, thought leaders must
carefully present a given nation's history to suppress ugly historic
events as much as possible. Otherwise a nation's intelligentsia may
doubt its own inculcated superiority and by extension, experience
qualms about both national and supranational policies that transcend
politics. Superiority complex erosion undermines the very foundation of
Through the myth it creates, propaganda imposes a complete
range of intuitive knowledge, susceptible of only one
interpretation, unique and one-sided, and precluding any
divergence.
At the very least, an awareness of Canada's omitted history enables
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
All of the above is pointless to proles.

That's a lot of ranting. But it does nothing to establish that Meghan
Markle would actually experience problems living in Canada because some
Canadians didn't welcome refugees 150 years ago.

Hyperbole's necessary for untaught history to hit home. Now that we know
that Canada suffers from the same social afflictions as any other nation
there's no reason to believe that Canada offers safer sanctuary than any
other nation.
Your possible "prole" internalization is interesting. What you view as
a rant is me marshaling my thoughts.
"Sometimes it's difficult to keep momentum if it's you that
you are following." - _Evita_
?

I think it should be pointed out that Meghan Markle was born and spent
most of the first 30 years of her life in the United States without
apparently difficulty. It should also be pointed out that she was
living and working in Toronto at the time that she met Prince Harry,
again without apparent difficulty.
It should also be pointed out that haters gotta hate.

While I doubt if Meghan Markle appears as obviously black in the UK, I have to admit that the stupidity that can be associated with prejudice is not to be underestimated. I met somebody (pre-911) who asked me if I had suffered from prejudice through being classed as Irish (I have not - you can't tell that from across the street and many people mis-identify my accent as Scots). He had encountered difficulty finding accommodation through being classed as black. He looked exactly like a stereotypical Saudi Prince, complete with short, neatly trimmed moustache and beard, and he was a British Citizen working within a defense industry, but of a family that had originally come from somewhere around Arabia, so an identification as Arab would at least have been understandable, but black? I mean, if you are going to discriminate on ethnic origin, at least get the ethnic origin right.
Finally, an ObSF - remember the scene in Harry Potter where Hermione gets called a mudblood and isn't greatly offended because she hasn't heard the term before, but Ron is deeply offended on her behalf? Well imagine an Indian (black as coal) on a night out with friends. He naturally thinks of himself as Indian, so he doesn't immediately understand a term of abuse and asks his friends "what is this word, Paki?" thus nearly starting a fight - fortunately he was too sensible a chap to let things get out of hand.

Note that being mistaken for a Pakistani could lead a person from
India into throwing punches, and vice versa.
Being called a "Paki" will lead to similar behavior from a Pakistani.
That has always troubled me. If they don't want to be called "Pakis"
then they really should change the name of their country to one with a
short form that they are willing to live with, possibly without a
"stan" on the end.

and anybody who gets offended by being called something derived from Niger obviously is also too touchy are they?

[David Johnston]

Post by J. Clarke
Being called a "Paki" will lead to similar behavior from a Pakistani.
That has always troubled me. If they don't want to be called "Pakis"
then they really should change the name of their country to one with a
short form that they are willing to live with, possibly without a
"stan" on the end.

There is no term that would be pleasant to only hear, and hear
frequently as a term of derision.

[Moriarty]

<snip>

Post by J. Clarke
Being called a "Paki" will lead to similar behavior from a Pakistani.
That has always troubled me. If they don't want to be called "Pakis"
then they really should change the name of their country to one with a
short form that they are willing to live with, possibly without a
"stan" on the end.

When I grew up following cricket in the 70s and 80s, "Paki" was a non-racist term we used in Australia to denote the Pakistani cricket team.

-Moriarty

[Joe Bernstein]

Post by m***@sky.com
Finally, an ObSF - remember the scene in Harry Potter where Hermione
gets called a mudblood and isn't greatly offended because she hasn't
heard the term before, but Ron is deeply offended on her behalf?

Of course, there are those who are offended because, having noticed
that Hermione's hair is consistently described as "frizzy", they were
astonished to see a white actress play her in the movies. I don't
think winning is possible when it comes to Hermione Granger and this
kind of thing.

-- JLB

[J. Clarke]

On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 21:33:57 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein

Post by Joe Bernstein

Post by m***@sky.com
Finally, an ObSF - remember the scene in Harry Potter where Hermione
gets called a mudblood and isn't greatly offended because she hasn't
heard the term before, but Ron is deeply offended on her behalf?

Of course, there are those who are offended because, having noticed
that Hermione's hair is consistently described as "frizzy", they were
astonished to see a white actress play her in the movies. I don't
think winning is possible when it comes to Hermione Granger and this
kind of thing.

Anyone who thinks that "frizzy" is somehow suggestive a particular
race isn't a person who has ever had a bad hair day.

[Kevrob]

Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 21:33:57 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein

Post by Joe Bernstein

Post by m***@sky.com
Finally, an ObSF - remember the scene in Harry Potter where Hermione
gets called a mudblood and isn't greatly offended because she hasn't
heard the term before, but Ron is deeply offended on her behalf?

Of course, there are those who are offended because, having noticed
that Hermione's hair is consistently described as "frizzy", they were
astonished to see a white actress play her in the movies. I don't
think winning is possible when it comes to Hermione Granger and this
kind of thing.

Anyone who thinks that "frizzy" is somehow suggestive a particular
race isn't a person who has ever had a bad hair day.

1970 commercial: shampoo v "the frizzies"

Frizzy hair as a means of "uglying up" a young Anne Hathaway

The "frizzy hair" = "African ancestry" head-canon came to
be "IRL" when there was an actress with that background cast
in the original London production of "Harry Potter and the
Cursed Child" and on Broadway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noma_Dumezweni

Kevin R

[J. Clarke]

Post by Kevrob

Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 21:33:57 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein

Post by Joe Bernstein

Post by m***@sky.com
Finally, an ObSF - remember the scene in Harry Potter where Hermione
gets called a mudblood and isn't greatly offended because she hasn't
heard the term before, but Ron is deeply offended on her behalf?

Of course, there are those who are offended because, having noticed
that Hermione's hair is consistently described as "frizzy", they were
astonished to see a white actress play her in the movies. I don't
think winning is possible when it comes to Hermione Granger and this
kind of thing.

Anyone who thinks that "frizzy" is somehow suggestive a particular
race isn't a person who has ever had a bad hair day.

1970 commercial: shampoo v "the frizzies"
http://youtu.be/sBVTt8J2ObE
Frizzy hair as a means of "uglying up" a young Anne Hathaway
http://youtu.be/2CkcwPi20ms
The "frizzy hair" = "African ancestry" head-canon came to
be "IRL" when there was an actress with that background cast
in the original London production of "Harry Potter and the
Cursed Child" and on Broadway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noma_Dumezweni

Wikipedia's article on "Frizz" uses Mary Pickford as their first
exemplar.

Some people might be conflating "frizzy" and "nappy".

[Paul S Person]

On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 23:06:05 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Kevrob

Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 21:33:57 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein

Post by Joe Bernstein

Post by m***@sky.com
Finally, an ObSF - remember the scene in Harry Potter where Hermione
gets called a mudblood and isn't greatly offended because she hasn't
heard the term before, but Ron is deeply offended on her behalf?

Of course, there are those who are offended because, having noticed
that Hermione's hair is consistently described as "frizzy", they were
astonished to see a white actress play her in the movies. I don't
think winning is possible when it comes to Hermione Granger and this
kind of thing.

Anyone who thinks that "frizzy" is somehow suggestive a particular
race isn't a person who has ever had a bad hair day.

1970 commercial: shampoo v "the frizzies"
http://youtu.be/sBVTt8J2ObE
Frizzy hair as a means of "uglying up" a young Anne Hathaway
http://youtu.be/2CkcwPi20ms
The "frizzy hair" = "African ancestry" head-canon came to
be "IRL" when there was an actress with that background cast
in the original London production of "Harry Potter and the
Cursed Child" and on Broadway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noma_Dumezweni

Wikipedia's article on "Frizz" uses Mary Pickford as their first
exemplar.
Some people might be conflating "frizzy" and "nappy".

Or "wooly", which appears in Haggard.

Extending this to "frizzy" sounds like a new development to me.

Of course, /any/ term can be offensive if used that way.

[David Johnston]

Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 21:33:57 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein

Post by Joe Bernstein

Post by m***@sky.com
Finally, an ObSF - remember the scene in Harry Potter where Hermione
gets called a mudblood and isn't greatly offended because she hasn't
heard the term before, but Ron is deeply offended on her behalf?

Of course, there are those who are offended because, having noticed
that Hermione's hair is consistently described as "frizzy", they were
astonished to see a white actress play her in the movies. I don't
think winning is possible when it comes to Hermione Granger and this
kind of thing.

Anyone who thinks that "frizzy" is somehow suggestive a particular
race isn't a person who has ever had a bad hair day.

Until she gets her makeover Hermione never had a good hair day.

[David Johnston]

Post by D B Davis
<snip>

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis
[In 1857 at Tronoto, Williams] found that the Canadians were
getting sick and tired of the fugitive slaves whom the
Abolitionists were slipping across the border. These Negroes
looked "like a poor, cast-off forsaken race," and the cold
winters were sending many of them to their graves. When he
saw "so many wretched negroes without homes" and excluded
from the Canadian churches, railroads, and omnibuses, he
thought of the "Methodist Churches in Charleston, with
their six thousands happy colored members."
_George Walton Williams_ (Coulter)

<snip>

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston
Did you have a point to make?

Yes. Although my arguments remain pointless to proles, who have better
things to do than ponder propaganda.
Propaganda inculcates a superiority complex into a nation's citizens. In
order to keep the myth of superiority alive, thought leaders must
carefully present a given nation's history to suppress ugly historic
events as much as possible. Otherwise a nation's intelligentsia may
doubt its own inculcated superiority and by extension, experience
qualms about both national and supranational policies that transcend
politics. Superiority complex erosion undermines the very foundation of
Through the myth it creates, propaganda imposes a complete
range of intuitive knowledge, susceptible of only one
interpretation, unique and one-sided, and precluding any divergence.
At the very least, an awareness of Canada's omitted history enables
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
All of the above is pointless to proles.

That's a lot of ranting. But it does nothing to establish that Meghan
Markle would actually experience problems living in Canada because some
Canadians didn't welcome refugees 150 years ago.

Hyperbole's necessary for untaught history to hit home.

Hyperbole has been making people look stupid since the first animals
crawled onto the land.

Now that we know

Post by D B Davis
that Canada suffers from the same social afflictions as any other nation

I see no way in which a tale of hostility toward refugees 150 years ago
establishes that Canada has tabloid journalism nearly as bad as that of
England. So no, "we" don't know that Canada suffers from the same
social afflictions as any other nation.

Post by D B Davis
there's no reason to believe that Canada offers safer sanctuary than any
other nation.
Your possible "prole" internalization is interesting. What you view as
a rant is me marshaling my thoughts.
"Sometimes it's difficult to keep momentum if it's you that
you are following." - _Evita_
☮
Thank you,

[D B Davis]

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis
<snip>

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis
[In 1857 at Tronoto, Williams] found that the Canadians were
getting sick and tired of the fugitive slaves whom the
Abolitionists were slipping across the border. These Negroes
looked "like a poor, cast-off forsaken race," and the cold
winters were sending many of them to their graves. When he
saw "so many wretched negroes without homes" and excluded
from the Canadian churches, railroads, and omnibuses, he
thought of the "Methodist Churches in Charleston, with
their six thousands happy colored members."
_George Walton Williams_ (Coulter)

<snip>

Post by David Johnston

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston
Did you have a point to make?

Yes. Although my arguments remain pointless to proles, who have better
things to do than ponder propaganda.
Propaganda inculcates a superiority complex into a nation's citizens. In
order to keep the myth of superiority alive, thought leaders must
carefully present a given nation's history to suppress ugly historic
events as much as possible. Otherwise a nation's intelligentsia may
doubt its own inculcated superiority and by extension, experience
qualms about both national and supranational policies that transcend
politics. Superiority complex erosion undermines the very foundation of
Through the myth it creates, propaganda imposes a complete
range of intuitive knowledge, susceptible of only one
interpretation, unique and one-sided, and precluding any divergence.
Through the myth it creates, propaganda imposes a complete
range of intuitive knowledge, susceptible of only one
interpretation, unique and one-sided, and precluding any divergence.
At the very least, an awareness of Canada's omitted history enables
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
All of the above is pointless to proles.

That's a lot of ranting. But it does nothing to establish that Meghan
Markle would actually experience problems living in Canada because some
Canadians didn't welcome refugees 150 years ago.

Hyperbole's necessary for untaught history to hit home.

Hyperbole has been making people look stupid since the first animals
crawled onto the land.

It works like a charm when writers use it. :)

☮

Thank you,

[h***@gmail.com]

Post by D B Davis
Hyperbole's necessary for untaught history to hit home. Now that we know
that Canada suffers from the same social afflictions as any other nation
there's no reason to believe that Canada offers safer sanctuary than any
other nation.

What happened in 1857 is of SFA relevance to the current situation in Canada.

Post by D B Davis
Your possible "prole" internalization is interesting. What you view as
a rant is me marshaling my thoughts.

Well marshal them somewhere else and post something that expresses your point when you have one.

[J. Clarke]

On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 09:56:11 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by D B Davis
Hyperbole's necessary for untaught history to hit home. Now that we know
that Canada suffers from the same social afflictions as any other nation
there's no reason to believe that Canada offers safer sanctuary than any
other nation.

What happened in 1857 is of SFA relevance to the current situation in Canada.

Assuming it happened at all.
For all we know, the reporter was an ardent racist who saw what he
wanted to see.

The notion that a woman who is married to the person 6th from the
British throne has to flee England to escape racial oppression and
will be in mortal danger in Canada because of its rampant racism
carries snowflakery to a new and amazing height.

There is something called "perspective". You really need to get some.

[m***@sky.com]

Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 09:56:11 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by D B Davis
Hyperbole's necessary for untaught history to hit home. Now that we know
that Canada suffers from the same social afflictions as any other nation
there's no reason to believe that Canada offers safer sanctuary than any
other nation.

What happened in 1857 is of SFA relevance to the current situation in Canada.

Assuming it happened at all.
For all we know, the reporter was an ardent racist who saw what he
wanted to see.

The notion that a woman who is married to the person 6th from the
British throne has to flee England to escape racial oppression and
will be in mortal danger in Canada because of its rampant racism
carries snowflakery to a new and amazing height.
There is something called "perspective". You really need to get some.

Another nice Nevil Shute story is "Landfall" - a war hero officer goes off to Canada at the end of the story because he marries a barmaid, and that sort of thing isn't done by officers and people of his class in England. Nice understated sensible heroism, if there is such a thing. He tests a vaguely described secret weapon launched against ships from a plane (perhaps an automatically guided bomb, with a proximity fuse). He is well aware that this thing has a nasty habit of blowing up while still attached to the plane but is prepared to carry on, although he requests (not demands) an armoured seat. "I've got very simple tastes, sir...But I would like the old armchair to be a steel forging, if we could arrange it".

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 09:56:11 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by D B Davis
Hyperbole's necessary for untaught history to hit home. Now that we know
that Canada suffers from the same social afflictions as any other nation
there's no reason to believe that Canada offers safer sanctuary than any
other nation.

What happened in 1857 is of SFA relevance to the current situation in Canada.

Assuming it happened at all.
For all we know, the reporter was an ardent racist who saw what he
wanted to see.

The notion that a woman who is married to the person 6th from the
British throne has to flee England to escape racial oppression and
will be in mortal danger in Canada because of its rampant racism
carries snowflakery to a new and amazing height.
There is something called "perspective". You really need to get some.

I can't speak about Canada, but the population
of England is about sixty million, and the number
of those willing and able to murder her in the name
of nation and race, egged on by "popular" media
who mostly don't put it in quite those terms,
probably isn't zero. Meanwhile her career looked
like to go around the country and the world
declaring things officially open. Amongst other
things, that gives the aforementioned minority
plenty of opportunities to pull off the hit.

[J. Clarke]

On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 12:51:43 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 09:56:11 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by D B Davis
Hyperbole's necessary for untaught history to hit home. Now that we know
that Canada suffers from the same social afflictions as any other nation
there's no reason to believe that Canada offers safer sanctuary than any
other nation.

What happened in 1857 is of SFA relevance to the current situation in Canada.

Assuming it happened at all.
For all we know, the reporter was an ardent racist who saw what he
wanted to see.

The notion that a woman who is married to the person 6th from the
British throne has to flee England to escape racial oppression and
will be in mortal danger in Canada because of its rampant racism
carries snowflakery to a new and amazing height.
There is something called "perspective". You really need to get some.

I can't speak about Canada, but the population
of England is about sixty million, and the number
of those willing and able to murder her in the name
of nation and race, egged on by "popular" media
who mostly don't put it in quite those terms,
probably isn't zero.
Meanwhile her career looked
like to go around the country and the world
declaring things officially open. Amongst other
things, that gives the aforementioned minority
plenty of opportunities to pull off the hit.

Google "perspective". Get some.

[h***@gmail.com]

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by D B Davis
Hyperbole's necessary for untaught history to hit home. Now that we know
that Canada suffers from the same social afflictions as any other nation
there's no reason to believe that Canada offers safer sanctuary than any
other nation.

What happened in 1857 is of SFA relevance to the current situation in Canada.

Post by D B Davis
Your possible "prole" internalization is interesting. What you view as
a rant is me marshaling my thoughts.

Well marshal them somewhere else and post something that expresses your
point when you have one.

Playing the part of the group's silly supercilious self-appointed Thread
Marshal mortifies me. Your own mileage obviously varies.

Your point might be made somewhat more clearly if you post the final thought rather than require anybody trying to figure out your point to sort through the process.

[D B Davis]

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston
Did you have a point to make?

Yes. Although my arguments remain pointless to proles, who have better
things to do than ponder propaganda.
Propaganda inculcates a superiority complex into a nation's citizens. In
order to keep the myth of superiority alive, thought leaders must
carefully present a given nation's history to suppress ugly historic
events as much as possible. Otherwise a nation's intelligentsia may
doubt its own inculcated superiority and by extension, experience
qualms about both national and supranational policies that transcend
politics. Superiority complex erosion undermines the very foundation of
Through the myth it creates, propaganda imposes a complete
range of intuitive knowledge, susceptible of only one
interpretation, unique and one-sided, and precluding any
divergence.
At the very least, an awareness of Canada's omitted history enables
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
All of the above is pointless to proles.

I would have thought that at least in the Western democracies, the propaganda
that creates a myth of national superiority... only *affects* proles, with the
intelligentsia experiencing plenty of qualms.

Politicians are intelligentsia by definition, which includes Sarah
Palin. Do HRC and Trump experience qualms?

Proles don't ponder propaganda. They have better things to do. They'd
rather score some sex at a bar so they go along to get along. There's
also no need for propaganda to inculcate a superiority complex into
psychopaths who already have one.
Propaganda's aimed squarely at conscientious intelligentsia who have
the power to influence others: school teachers, artists, public figures,
pundits, and the like.

☮

Thank you,

[Paul S Person]

Post by D B Davis

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston
Did you have a point to make?

Yes. Although my arguments remain pointless to proles, who have better
things to do than ponder propaganda.
Propaganda inculcates a superiority complex into a nation's citizens. In
order to keep the myth of superiority alive, thought leaders must
carefully present a given nation's history to suppress ugly historic
events as much as possible. Otherwise a nation's intelligentsia may
doubt its own inculcated superiority and by extension, experience
qualms about both national and supranational policies that transcend
politics. Superiority complex erosion undermines the very foundation of
Through the myth it creates, propaganda imposes a complete
range of intuitive knowledge, susceptible of only one
interpretation, unique and one-sided, and precluding any
divergence.
At the very least, an awareness of Canada's omitted history enables
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
All of the above is pointless to proles.

I would have thought that at least in the Western democracies, the propaganda
that creates a myth of national superiority... only *affects* proles, with the
intelligentsia experiencing plenty of qualms.

Politicians are intelligentsia by definition, which includes Sarah
Palin. Do HRC and Trump experience qualms?

Over there in alt-reality, maybe.

Over here, in the real world, /most/ politicians are /clearly/ nothing
like intelligentsia, however wealthy they may be.

But perhaps you are confusing "rich" with "intelligentsia" -- kind of
like Trump in Doonesbury several decades ago, who confused "quality"
with "hideously expensive".

[D B Davis]

<snip>

Post by Paul S Person

Post by D B Davis
Politicians are intelligentsia by definition, which includes Sarah
Palin. Do HRC and Trump experience qualms?

Over there in alt-reality, maybe.
Over here, in the real world, /most/ politicians are /clearly/ nothing
like intelligentsia, however wealthy they may be.
But perhaps you are confusing "rich" with "intelligentsia" -- kind of
like Trump in Doonesbury several decades ago, who confused "quality"
with "hideously expensive".

It's all there in the dictionary. [1] If you get paid to build widgets,
engage in menial labor, perform a trade, etc, you're not an
intellectual. If instead, you peddle your "gift of gab" for food, you're
probably an intellectual in the broadest sense.

The "Disney definition" of intellectual appears near the top:

3.
a. Having or showing intellect, especially to a high
degree. See Synonyms at intelligent.
b. Given to activities or pursuits that require
exercise of the intellect.

The pedantic definition of intellectual appears near the bottom:

7. a person professionally engaged in mental labor.

Note.

[1] https://www.thefreedictionary.com/intellectual

☮

Thank you,

[Paul S Person]

Post by D B Davis
<snip>

Post by Paul S Person

Post by D B Davis
Politicians are intelligentsia by definition, which includes Sarah
Palin. Do HRC and Trump experience qualms?

Over there in alt-reality, maybe.
Over here, in the real world, /most/ politicians are /clearly/ nothing
like intelligentsia, however wealthy they may be.
But perhaps you are confusing "rich" with "intelligentsia" -- kind of
like Trump in Doonesbury several decades ago, who confused "quality"
with "hideously expensive".

It's all there in the dictionary. [1] If you get paid to build widgets,
engage in menial labor, perform a trade, etc, you're not an
intellectual. If instead, you peddle your "gift of gab" for food, you're
probably an intellectual in the broadest sense.

I am sorry to see a dictionary accepting a definition that is so broad
as to be meaningless.

You do realize it makes flim-flam artists "intellectuals".

The distinction I grew up with in the 50s was between /blue-collar/
and /white-collar/ labor, which is what the definition given is
properly about. Pointy-headed intellectuals and double-domes (the 50's
had insults for just about everybody) were rare and not greatly
admired. Not to mention unintelligible to ordinary folks.

[J. Clarke]

On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 10:29:57 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person

Post by D B Davis
<snip>

Post by Paul S Person

Post by D B Davis
Politicians are intelligentsia by definition, which includes Sarah
Palin. Do HRC and Trump experience qualms?

Over there in alt-reality, maybe.
Over here, in the real world, /most/ politicians are /clearly/ nothing
like intelligentsia, however wealthy they may be.
But perhaps you are confusing "rich" with "intelligentsia" -- kind of
like Trump in Doonesbury several decades ago, who confused "quality"
with "hideously expensive".

It's all there in the dictionary. [1] If you get paid to build widgets,
engage in menial labor, perform a trade, etc, you're not an
intellectual. If instead, you peddle your "gift of gab" for food, you're
probably an intellectual in the broadest sense.

I am sorry to see a dictionary accepting a definition that is so broad
as to be meaningless.
You do realize it makes flim-flam artists "intellectuals".
The distinction I grew up with in the 50s was between /blue-collar/
and /white-collar/ labor, which is what the definition given is
properly about. Pointy-headed intellectuals and double-domes (the 50's
had insults for just about everybody) were rare and not greatly
admired. Not to mention unintelligible to ordinary folks.

That is one aspect of the '50s that I miss. Most of the current crop
of politicians and professional do-gooders would have been
laughingstocks.

[h***@gmail.com]

Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 10:29:57 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person

Post by D B Davis
<snip>

Post by Paul S Person

Post by D B Davis
Politicians are intelligentsia by definition, which includes Sarah
Palin. Do HRC and Trump experience qualms?

Over there in alt-reality, maybe.
Over here, in the real world, /most/ politicians are /clearly/ nothing
like intelligentsia, however wealthy they may be.
But perhaps you are confusing "rich" with "intelligentsia" -- kind of
like Trump in Doonesbury several decades ago, who confused "quality"
with "hideously expensive".

It's all there in the dictionary. [1] If you get paid to build widgets,
engage in menial labor, perform a trade, etc, you're not an
intellectual. If instead, you peddle your "gift of gab" for food, you're
probably an intellectual in the broadest sense.

I am sorry to see a dictionary accepting a definition that is so broad
as to be meaningless.
You do realize it makes flim-flam artists "intellectuals".
The distinction I grew up with in the 50s was between /blue-collar/
and /white-collar/ labor, which is what the definition given is
properly about. Pointy-headed intellectuals and double-domes (the 50's
had insults for just about everybody) were rare and not greatly
admired. Not to mention unintelligible to ordinary folks.

That is one aspect of the '50s that I miss. Most of the current crop
of politicians and professional do-gooders would have been
laughingstocks.

and you could beat or rape your wife without anybody interfering, and anybody who wasn't white knew where they belonged...

Strange how you long for those days...

[Paul S Person]

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 10:29:57 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person

Post by D B Davis
<snip>

Post by Paul S Person

Post by D B Davis
Politicians are intelligentsia by definition, which includes Sarah
Palin. Do HRC and Trump experience qualms?

Over there in alt-reality, maybe.
Over here, in the real world, /most/ politicians are /clearly/ nothing
like intelligentsia, however wealthy they may be.
But perhaps you are confusing "rich" with "intelligentsia" -- kind of
like Trump in Doonesbury several decades ago, who confused "quality"
with "hideously expensive".

It's all there in the dictionary. [1] If you get paid to build widgets,
engage in menial labor, perform a trade, etc, you're not an
intellectual. If instead, you peddle your "gift of gab" for food, you're
probably an intellectual in the broadest sense.

I am sorry to see a dictionary accepting a definition that is so broad
as to be meaningless.
You do realize it makes flim-flam artists "intellectuals".
The distinction I grew up with in the 50s was between /blue-collar/
and /white-collar/ labor, which is what the definition given is
properly about. Pointy-headed intellectuals and double-domes (the 50's
had insults for just about everybody) were rare and not greatly
admired. Not to mention unintelligible to ordinary folks.

That is one aspect of the '50s that I miss. Most of the current crop
of politicians and professional do-gooders would have been
laughingstocks.

and you could beat or rape your wife without anybody interfering, and anybody who wasn't white knew where they belonged...
Strange how you long for those days...

Just good ol' Traditional Family Values of the 50s.

You know, what the Republican Party supports, per its platform.

I, myself, loathe them, BTW.

[J. Clarke]

On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 09:47:38 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 10:29:57 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person

Post by D B Davis
<snip>

Post by Paul S Person

Post by D B Davis
Politicians are intelligentsia by definition, which includes Sarah
Palin. Do HRC and Trump experience qualms?

Over there in alt-reality, maybe.
Over here, in the real world, /most/ politicians are /clearly/ nothing
like intelligentsia, however wealthy they may be.
But perhaps you are confusing "rich" with "intelligentsia" -- kind of
like Trump in Doonesbury several decades ago, who confused "quality"
with "hideously expensive".

It's all there in the dictionary. [1] If you get paid to build widgets,
engage in menial labor, perform a trade, etc, you're not an
intellectual. If instead, you peddle your "gift of gab" for food, you're
probably an intellectual in the broadest sense.

I am sorry to see a dictionary accepting a definition that is so broad
as to be meaningless.
You do realize it makes flim-flam artists "intellectuals".
The distinction I grew up with in the 50s was between /blue-collar/
and /white-collar/ labor, which is what the definition given is
properly about. Pointy-headed intellectuals and double-domes (the 50's
had insults for just about everybody) were rare and not greatly
admired. Not to mention unintelligible to ordinary folks.

That is one aspect of the '50s that I miss. Most of the current crop
of politicians and professional do-gooders would have been
laughingstocks.

and you could beat or rape your wife without anybody interfering,

Uh huh. Sure you could. "Have you stopped beating your wife" was a
loaded question then just as it is now.

Post by Paul S Person

Post by h***@gmail.com
and anybody who wasn't white knew where they belonged...

Rosa Parks knew exactly where she belonged. So did Martin Luther King
and the black citizens of Montgomery. And the Supreme Court agreed
with them.

Oliver Brown knew exactly where his daughter belonged. The Supreme
Court agreed with him.

Post by Paul S Person

Post by h***@gmail.com
Strange how you long for those days...

Nothing strange about it. In the 1950s the United States had two
Presidents, Harry S Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower. Do you really
feel that Donald Trump or any of the current crop of Democrats are
better suited for the job?

Post by Paul S Person
Just good ol' Traditional Family Values of the 50s.
You know, what the Republican Party supports, per its platform.
I, myself, loathe them, BTW.

So how do you feel about cops shooting unarmed black people and
getting away with it? How do you feel about having to indebt yourself
for life to get a college degree? How do you feel about having to
spend a year's pay to get reliable transportation so you can keep your
job?

We get that you hate the past. What you don't get is that the present
is not an improvement, it just trades one set of problems for another?

[Quadibloc]

Post by Paul S Person
Over here, in the real world, /most/ politicians are /clearly/ nothing
like intelligentsia, however wealthy they may be.

But that clearly contradicts the following two "facts":

1) Nearly all politicians are more intelligent than Donald Trump.
2) Donald Trump is a genius.

John Savard

[Paul S Person]

On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 12:39:53 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Paul S Person
Over here, in the real world, /most/ politicians are /clearly/ nothing
like intelligentsia, however wealthy they may be.

1) Nearly all politicians are more intelligent than Donald Trump.

"more" is comparative.

I've seen Pet Rocks that could make the same claim, but they were
still rocks.

Post by Quadibloc
2) Donald Trump is a genius.

So was Wile E Coyote.

But, actually, Trump is more like Foghorn Leghorn: a Loud-Mouthed
Schnook.

[Kevrob]

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 12:39:53 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Paul S Person
Over here, in the real world, /most/ politicians are /clearly/ nothing
like intelligentsia, however wealthy they may be.

1) Nearly all politicians are more intelligent than Donald Trump.

"more" is comparative.
I've seen Pet Rocks that could make the same claim, but they were
still rocks.

Post by Quadibloc
2) Donald Trump is a genius.

So was Wile E Coyote.

Please. Wile E was a "super-genius." :)

Post by Paul S Person
But, actually, Trump is more like Foghorn Leghorn: a Loud-Mouthed
Schnook.

Trump has experience and native cunning, but little or no wisdom.
Anecdotes from his Wharton classmates show him making little or
no impression on them.

https://www.thedp.com/article/2017/02/trump-classmates-wharton-academics

I'm pro-free enterprise. I admire an entrepreneur who creates,
or builds an environment that helps others create new technologies
and processes that make life better. Trump, like his father before
him, is a crony capitalist, making his money in highly regulated
markets by knowing the ropes of those systems: acquiring government
subsidies, maneuvering through zoning rules, rent control/stabilization
regs, gaming licenses, tax abatements, eminent domain and, of course,
the various chapters of bankruptcy law. He's no Wozniak nor Jobs. He's
not Noyce, Morton nor Grove. He's closer to P T Barnum than to Andrew
Carnegie, both of whom engaged in real philanthropy, not Drumpf's phony
kind. Don't get me wrong. Trump isn't morally obligated to give away
money he acquires ethically. Pretending to is just hypocritical.
It's also embarrassing when you get caught.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-trump-foundation/trump-must-pay-2-million-for-misusing-namesake-charity-new-york-judge-idUSKBN1XH2NE

Sometimes native cunning gets one farther than intellectualism.
Native cunning and money from Daddy?

Kevin R

[J. Clarke]

On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 10:23:35 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person

Post by D B Davis

Post by D B Davis

Post by David Johnston
Did you have a point to make?

Yes. Although my arguments remain pointless to proles, who have better
things to do than ponder propaganda.
Propaganda inculcates a superiority complex into a nation's citizens. In
order to keep the myth of superiority alive, thought leaders must
carefully present a given nation's history to suppress ugly historic
events as much as possible. Otherwise a nation's intelligentsia may
doubt its own inculcated superiority and by extension, experience
qualms about both national and supranational policies that transcend
politics. Superiority complex erosion undermines the very foundation of
Through the myth it creates, propaganda imposes a complete
range of intuitive knowledge, susceptible of only one
interpretation, unique and one-sided, and precluding any divergence.
At the very least, an awareness of Canada's omitted history enables
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
All of the above is pointless to proles.

I would have thought that at least in the Western democracies, the propaganda
that creates a myth of national superiority... only *affects* proles, with the
intelligentsia experiencing plenty of qualms.

Politicians are intelligentsia by definition, which includes Sarah
Palin. Do HRC and Trump experience qualms?

Over there in alt-reality, maybe.
Over here, in the real world, /most/ politicians are /clearly/ nothing
like intelligentsia, however wealthy they may be.
But perhaps you are confusing "rich" with "intelligentsia" -- kind of
like Trump in Doonesbury several decades ago, who confused "quality"
with "hideously expensive".

"intelligent politician" is an oxymoron.

However "intelligent intelligencia" may also be one.

[David DeLaney]

As the British tabloid press has taken to sniping at the former Meghan

Markle, for

no better reason than that by American standards she would be considered to be
black,

Stop right there.

I've seen pictures of her. She's no darker, apparently, than Italians. Her hair
is long and straight. WE would not consider her as "black" unless somehow she
were vehemently insisting she qualified as such.

YOU are considering that the BRITS are considering that the Americans would do
this. The Brits are not actually considering that; instead, she's running up
against a different sort of racism, prevalent over in the _UK_, which has not
got the American deep-seated slavery hangups, but has Pakistani and immigrant-
from-Europe-or-India issues.

It's bad enough when you confidently put forth entirely wrong opinions about
how Americans think or behave, John, but as a Canadian, you're supposed to
follow UK events and culture MUCH more closely than you are American versions,
and here you're completely failing to do so.

Her mom, Doria Ragland, is light caramel (Wikipedia) with kinkier hair, and
hits he american template for "black, lighter version of"; her dad's folks are
from Pennsylvania, Germany, etc., and are pretty well white. As a result, she's
no darker than a mild subntan ... but has a distinctly _India_-dweller look in
some pictures. This doesn't set off (most) USAns, with that light a skin, but
can get to Brits of certain ages, een with that light a skin color.

Dave, you may now continue your alleged train of thought

[Jack Bohn]

Post by David DeLaney
It's bad enough when you confidently put forth entirely wrong opinions about
how Americans think or behave, John, but as a Canadian, you're supposed to
follow UK events and culture MUCH more closely than you are American versions,
and here you're completely failing to do so.

Is that true? In the US, I'm more aware of British than Canadian current events. ("Were there so many events in Canada that we have to specify the current ones?") I can see where that doesn't necessarily work in the opposite direction.

Do you have a BBC Canada channel? A BBC2 Canada2 channel? Any distribution of independent or commercial UK culture? Distribution of US culture beyond receiving our radio and TV waves?

[Quadibloc]

Post by Jack Bohn
Do you have a BBC Canada channel? A BBC2 Canada2 channel?

No to both of those questions, except perhaps on cable.

Post by Jack Bohn
Any distribution of independent or commercial UK culture?

We got to see at least one season of The Avengers (the one with John Steed and
Emma Peel) before the Americans did.

When the TV series "Three's Company" started, we noticed it was oddly similar to
"Man About the House" in some respects, which had aired on our televisions some
years previously.

So we do get some additional UK culture directly from Britain in addition to
some reflected from the U.S..

Post by Jack Bohn
Distribution of US culture beyond receiving our radio and TV waves?

Most of the paper magazines Canadians read are magazines published in the U.S..
We read Time, Newsweek, the Readers Digest, Model Railroading, Sky and
Telescope, and so on and so forth.

And DC and Marvel comics.

We have Disney and Star Wars toys in our stores, we watch your movies, we listen
to your Compact Discs as we listened to your vinyl LP records and your 45
singles before them.

The movies in our theatres chiefly come from the United States.

Do we have distribution of U.S. culture? That's hardly even a question to ask
here. Instead the question is: can Canadians find any evidence of a culture of
their own? (The answer, though, is yes. If they were interested, they could
listen to CBC, which no longer airs any U.S. shows. We have an astronomy
magazine published in Canada, SkyNews, which helps astronomy stores because of
Canadian tax restrictions, so we have three choices - Astronomy, Sky and
Telescope, and SkyNews.)

John Savard

[James Nicoll]

Post by Jack Bohn

Post by David DeLaney
It's bad enough when you confidently put forth entirely wrong opinions about
how Americans think or behave, John, but as a Canadian, you're supposed to
follow UK events and culture MUCH more closely than you are American versions,
and here you're completely failing to do so.

Is that true? In the US, I'm more aware of British than Canadian current events. ("Were there
so many events in Canada that we have to specify the current ones?") I can see where that
doesn't necessarily work in the opposite direction.
Do you have a BBC Canada channel? A BBC2 Canada2 channel? Any distribution of independent or
commercial UK culture? Distribution of US culture beyond receiving our radio and TV waves?

Access to US culture is pretty much unavoidable whether on olden timey cable or streaming
services. The drinking from a fire hose aspect of US entertainment is why we have CanCon.

There is a BBC Canada. Streaming services that have British fare include CBC Gem and Acorn but
the go-to source would be BritBox. The most ubiquitous British show is Midsommer Murders, which
teaches the important lesson that rustic folk are egregiously homicidal even for English people,
and that the primary means by which homes become vacant is murder. And that apparently
at some point Midsommer was ethnically cleansed, although POC are slowly beginning to
drift back in. God knows why, because the odds of getting murdered, particularly if one
proposes any sort of change, are extraordinary.

[Peter Trei]

Post by James Nicoll

Post by Jack Bohn

Post by David DeLaney
It's bad enough when you confidently put forth entirely wrong opinions about
how Americans think or behave, John, but as a Canadian, you're supposed to
follow UK events and culture MUCH more closely than you are American versions,
and here you're completely failing to do so.

Is that true? In the US, I'm more aware of British than Canadian current events. ("Were there
so many events in Canada that we have to specify the current ones?") I can see where that
doesn't necessarily work in the opposite direction.
Do you have a BBC Canada channel? A BBC2 Canada2 channel? Any distribution of independent or
commercial UK culture? Distribution of US culture beyond receiving our radio and TV waves?

Access to US culture is pretty much unavoidable whether on olden timey cable or streaming
services. The drinking from a fire hose aspect of US entertainment is why we have CanCon.
There is a BBC Canada. Streaming services that have British fare include CBC Gem and Acorn but
the go-to source would be BritBox. The most ubiquitous British show is Midsommer Murders, which
teaches the important lesson that rustic folk are egregiously homicidal even for English people,
and that the primary means by which homes become vacant is murder. And that apparently
at some point Midsommer was ethnically cleansed, although POC are slowly beginning to
drift back in. God knows why, because the odds of getting murdered, particularly if one
proposes any sort of change, are extraordinary.

Midsummer has about 3x the local murder rate.

Ts an observable trope that any small town or village wherein resides a popular detective will have an extraordinary homicide rate.

Mary St Mead - Miss Marple
Cabot Cove - Jessica Fletcher (Murder She Wrote)

The later, a town of 3560, averaged 5.3 murders/year, about 300x the US average.

Pt

[Titus G]

Post by Peter Trei

Post by James Nicoll

Post by Jack Bohn

Post by David DeLaney
It's bad enough when you confidently put forth entirely wrong opinions about
how Americans think or behave, John, but as a Canadian, you're supposed to
follow UK events and culture MUCH more closely than you are American versions,
and here you're completely failing to do so.

Is that true? In the US, I'm more aware of British than Canadian current events. ("Were there
so many events in Canada that we have to specify the current ones?") I can see where that
doesn't necessarily work in the opposite direction.
Do you have a BBC Canada channel? A BBC2 Canada2 channel? Any distribution of independent or
commercial UK culture? Distribution of US culture beyond receiving our radio and TV waves?

Access to US culture is pretty much unavoidable whether on olden timey cable or streaming
services. The drinking from a fire hose aspect of US entertainment is why we have CanCon.
There is a BBC Canada. Streaming services that have British fare include CBC Gem and Acorn but
the go-to source would be BritBox. The most ubiquitous British show is Midsommer Murders, which
teaches the important lesson that rustic folk are egregiously homicidal even for English people,
and that the primary means by which homes become vacant is murder. And that apparently
at some point Midsommer was ethnically cleansed, although POC are slowly beginning to
drift back in. God knows why, because the odds of getting murdered, particularly if one
proposes any sort of change, are extraordinary.

Midsummer has about 3x the local murder rate.
Ts an observable trope that any small town or village wherein resides a popular detective will have an extraordinary homicide rate.
Mary St Mead - Miss Marple
Cabot Cove - Jessica Fletcher (Murder She Wrote)
The later, a town of 3560, averaged 5.3 murders/year, about 300x the US average.
Pt

Perhaps those village statistics are distorted by the large number of
cunningly complicated big city murderers who go to a small Caribbean
Island to be caught; Death in Paradise.

[Quadibloc]

Post by David DeLaney
instead, she's running up
against a different sort of racism, prevalent over in the _UK_, which has not
got the American deep-seated slavery hangups, but has Pakistani and immigrant-
from-Europe-or-India issues.

Oh, I did get the joke when President G. W. Bush accidentally used a short form
of the word "Pakistani" in a speech which was a racial slur in Britain.

Since the British know perfectly well she got her dark hair and complexion from
Africa by way of America, if they think she's a bloody East Indian they're
bloody bonkers. I realize the people who publish the tabloids are irresponsible,
but I had no reason to think they were crazy.

So your hypothesis had not even entered my mind.

John Savard

[J. Clarke]

On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 13:30:50 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by David DeLaney
instead, she's running up
against a different sort of racism, prevalent over in the _UK_, which has not
got the American deep-seated slavery hangups, but has Pakistani and immigrant-
from-Europe-or-India issues.

Oh, I did get the joke when President G. W. Bush accidentally used a short form
of the word "Pakistani" in a speech which was a racial slur in Britain.
Since the British know perfectly well she got her dark hair and complexion from
Africa by way of America, if they think she's a bloody East Indian they're
bloody bonkers. I realize the people who publish the tabloids are irresponsible,
but I had no reason to think they were crazy.
So your hypothesis had not even entered my mind.

Note that there is a more subtle form of bigotry that may apply in
some localities. Black people who aren't Americans sometimes to look
down on black Americans.

[h***@gmail.com]

Post by J. Clarke
Note that there is a more subtle form of bigotry that may apply in
some localities. Black people who aren't Americans sometimes to look
down on black Americans.

and Americans sometimes look down on everybody else...

[Joe Bernstein]

Post by J. Clarke
Note that there is a more subtle form of bigotry that may apply in
some localities. Black people who aren't Americans sometimes to look
down on black Americans.

Um. I worked with a guy from Kenya (IIRC) once who I think had
become a naturalised citizen, so he was technically an American,
but who looked down on African-Americans of the kind descended from
slaves. I think this may've been close to 2008, because my
unreliable memory claims that I explained to him that while Michelle
Obama was in fact descended from slaves, Barack Obama wasn't.

I'm not denying your statement, just saying this kind of bigotry
isn't confined to people outside America, or not identified as
American.

-- JLB

[Chrysi Cat]

Post by Joe Bernstein

Post by J. Clarke
Note that there is a more subtle form of bigotry that may apply in
some localities. Black people who aren't Americans sometimes to look
down on black Americans.

Um. I worked with a guy from Kenya (IIRC) once who I think had
become a naturalised citizen, so he was technically an American,
but who looked down on African-Americans of the kind descended from
slaves. I think this may've been close to 2008, because my
unreliable memory claims that I explained to him that while Michelle
Obama was in fact descended from slaves, Barack Obama wasn't.
I'm not denying your statement, just saying this kind of bigotry
isn't confined to people outside America, or not identified as
American.
-- JLB

Not descended from slaves on his _Black_ side anyway. I think I
understand that exactly _one_ of *Ann Dunham's* great-great-grandparents
was a slave. But since THAT MAN's grandchildren could pass…

[Stephen Harker]

Post by Chrysi Cat

Post by Joe Bernstein

Post by J. Clarke
Note that there is a more subtle form of bigotry that may apply in
some localities. Black people who aren't Americans sometimes to look
down on black Americans.

[...]
I'm not denying your statement, just saying this kind of bigotry
isn't confined to people outside America, or not identified as
American.
-- JLB

Not descended from slaves on his _Black_ side anyway. I think I
understand that exactly _one_ of *Ann Dunham's*
great-great-grandparents was a slave. But since THAT MAN's
grandchildren could pass…

Let's not forget the white part of us are almost certainly all descended
from slaves (Slaves of the Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Franks, Greeks and
other peoples). Given the time it is pretty much 100% guaranteed.

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Stephen Harker

Post by Joe Bernstein

Post by J. Clarke
Note that there is a more subtle form of bigotry that may apply in
some localities. Black people who aren't Americans sometimes to look
down on black Americans.

[...]
I'm not denying your statement, just saying this kind of bigotry
isn't confined to people outside America, or not identified as
American.

Why should one race have a monopoly on being unfair?
I'm not sure, though, how what's described arises.
But I can think of reasons. Obviously they needn't
be /good/ reasons.

Post by Stephen Harker

[Barack Obama:]
Not descended from slaves on his _Black_ side anyway. I think I
understand that exactly _one_ of *Ann Dunham's*
great-great-grandparents was a slave. But since THAT MAN's
grandchildren could pass…

Let's not forget the white part of us are almost certainly all descended
from slaves (Slaves of the Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Franks, Greeks and
other peoples). Given the time it is pretty much 100% guaranteed.

"The white part of us" can ignore this as it isn't
relevant: we don't look like slaves (except for ones
in ancient-Rome epics like _Carry On Cleo_).

[Kevrob]

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Stephen Harker
Let's not forget the white part of us are almost certainly all descended
from slaves (Slaves of the Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Franks, Greeks and
other peoples). Given the time it is pretty much 100% guaranteed.

"The white part of us" can ignore this as it isn't
relevant: we don't look like slaves (except for ones
in ancient-Rome epics like _Carry On Cleo_).

I would have gone with "A Funny Thing Happened..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Funny_Thing_Happened_on_the_Way_to_the_Forum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Funny_Thing_Happened_on_the_Way_to_the_Forum_(film)

My Irish ancestors would have been targets of slave raiders
from North Africa, but they lived in the Midlands, so they
probably didn't get that far up the Shannon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade

Of course, raiders from Ireland - Irish, Norse or the sons
of both, the Norse-Gaels were heavily involved in slaving.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Ireland

The Danes would make slaves of the Anglo-Saxons. Norse society
was a slave society.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/12/151228-vikings-slaves-thralls-norse-scandinavia-archaeology/

see also, for another view:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/9/140926-vikings-norse-raiding-berserkers-scandinavia-winroth/

Kevin R

[f***@gmail.com]

Re: white slaves.

Do I dare point out that the majority of "white people" living today had ancestors who were serfs, peasants or villeins or some other form social group that was basically property. It might not have been called "slavery" but if you weren't free to walk away with your family and property to seek better opportunities elsewhere then you are a slave or just clever/skilled livestock.

I'm not sure what the status of my pre-Industrial ancestors was. Large amounts of Scot and Irish blood mixed with a small doses of French and German, and a surname from a small north English settlement (Scrooby). And maybe some blood from the Faroe Islands, or somewhere even further north.

Regards
Frank

[Paul S Person]

Post by f***@gmail.com
Re: white slaves.
Do I dare point out that the majority of "white people" living today had ancestors who were serfs, peasants or villeins or some other form social group that was basically property. It might not have been called "slavery" but if you weren't free to walk away with your family and property to seek better opportunities elsewhere then you are a slave or just clever/skilled livestock.

A /lot/ of Europeans came to the USA to escape such conditions.

My maternal grandfather's four great-grandparents were brought here in
the 1850s or so from two villages in the former East Germany. After
the Wall fell, my Uncle went over and met with some of our (distant)
cousins -- descendants of those that stayed.

The books/films starting with /The Emigrants/ tells a similar tale of
Swedish peasants and their journey to this country and what happened
when they got here.

Post by f***@gmail.com
I'm not sure what the status of my pre-Industrial ancestors was. Large amounts of Scot and Irish blood mixed with a small doses of French and German, and a surname from a small north English settlement (Scrooby). And maybe some blood from the Faroe Islands, or somewhere even further north.

[Stephen Harker]

On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 17:37:44 +1100, Stephen Harker

Post by Stephen Harker

Post by Chrysi Cat

Post by Joe Bernstein

Post by J. Clarke
Note that there is a more subtle form of bigotry that may apply in
some localities. Black people who aren't Americans sometimes to look
down on black Americans.

[...]
I'm not denying your statement, just saying this kind of bigotry
isn't confined to people outside America, or not identified as
American.
-- JLB

Not descended from slaves on his _Black_ side anyway. I think I
understand that exactly _one_ of *Ann Dunham's*
great-great-grandparents was a slave. But since THAT MAN's
grandchildren could pass…

Let's not forget the white part of us are almost certainly all descended
from slaves (Slaves of the Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Franks, Greeks and
other peoples). Given the time it is pretty much 100% guaranteed.

Greeks and Romans -- yes. To them, Germans were giants with white skin
and yellow hair. Not to mention blue eyes, no doubt.
But WASP ancestors /were/ Anglo-Saxons, by definition. And the Franks
were a German tribe that conquered, well, France. The locals were the
same Gauls.

Some others have addressed some of these points. This post addresses
whether Anglo-Saxons were slaves.

You have a rather rosy picture of Anglo-Saxon society. It contained
slaves and while some would be ex-Roman or British, many were other
Anglo-Saxons. They even sold other Anglo-Saxons as slaves to the
Continent. Slaves were common to well after the Norman Conquest. What
happened to the descendents of those who remained in Britain? They
became free Anglo-Saxons (mostly peasants) and mixed with everyone else.
At this point many of us are bound to have ancestors who were
Anglo-Saxons who were slaves.

See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Britain
Anglo-Saxons continued the slave system, sometimes in league with Norse
traders often selling slaves to the Irish. In 870, Vikings besieged and
captured the stronghold of Alt Clut (the capital of the Kingdom of
Strathclyde) and in 871 took most of the site's inhabitants, most likely
by Olaf the White and Ivar the Boneless, to the Dublin slave
markets.[12] Maredudd ab Owain (d. 999) paid a large ransom for 2,000
Welsh slaves, which demonstrates the large-scale slave raiding upon the
British Isles. Vikings traded with the Gaelic, Pictish, Brythonic and
Saxon kingdoms in between raiding them for slaves.

Some of the earliest accounts of the Anglo-Saxon English comes from the
account of the fair-haired boys from York seen in Rome by Pope Gregory
the Great. In the 7th century the English slave Balthild rose to be
queen of the Frankish king Clovis II. Anglo-Saxon opinion turned against
the sale of English abroad: a law of Ine of Wessex stated that anyone
selling his own countryman, whether bond or free, across the sea, was to
pay his own weregild in penalty, even when the man so sold was guilty of
crime.

Nevertheless, legal penalties and economic pressures that led to default
in payments maintained the supply of slaves, and in the 11th century
there was still a slave trade operating out of Bristol, as a passage in
the Vita Wulfstani makes clear.

[Quadibloc]

It turns out that Meghan's ancestry is not at all the reason she had been hounded by the press. It was just the excuse.

I have just seen an article that explains the _real_ reason why the British tabloid press has been hounding Meghan and Harry, and it all makes sense now.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/19/there-is-a-reason-why-royals-demonised-but-wont-read-all-about-it-prince-harry-meghan-markle

I realize that The Guardian does have a bit of a political slant, and therefore
I don't agree with absolutely _everything_ it prints, but I see no reason to
doubt or disagree with the position taken in this column, it seems eminently
reasonable, it is based on facts, and it fits the facts.

There is just one thing I find hard to understand. Isn't listening in to
telephone conversations without authorization a _criminal_ offence? Thus, it
shouldn't really matter what "eye-watering sums" of money you might spend in
*civil* settlments, Scotland Yard and the British Post Office are *still* going
to take an interest in you, and then _no_ amount of money will buy you out.

John Savard