Happy Mayday!
Rosa Luxemburg the great revolutionary tells us this holiday in the political sense started in 1856 in Australia. It was related to the fight for the 08 hour day:
The happy idea of using a proletarian holiday celebration as a means to attain the eight-hour day was first born in Australia. The workers there decided in 1856 to organize a day of complete stoppage together with meetings and entertainment as a demonstration in favor of the eight-hour day. The day of this celebration was to be April 21. At first, the Australian workers intended this only for the year 1856. But this first celebration had such a strong effect on the proletarian masses of Australia, enlivening them and leading to new agitation, that it was decided to repeat the celebration every year.
She later explains how the holiday moved to May 01st.
---------------------------------
Facebook 50 Years Later...
CLICK TO ENLARGE
----------------------------------
The Carnival of Socialism
I was asked to host at this blog the July 19th Carnival of Socialism. I will be asked to pick the best writing about a socialist related theme, from blogdom.
-----------------------------------
Open Thread
RENEGADE EYE
126 comments:
Happy May Day to you Ren, and everyone else reading this. The local youth group - the Popular Participation Movement will be hosting a Mat Day dinner in our town, which I will be attending.
"♫♪♫♪Have yourself a merry little May Day.........,
Let your heart be light
From now on,
our troubles will be out of sight........................................♫♪♫♪
Hello Renegade,
Thanks for the regards over at Daniel's blog. I visit your blog regularly although I hardly comment. You topics are a bit over my head :)
do you by any means think Obama is a socialist according to the right's propaganda? I see it is far from it, but maybe you have another opinion?
MAYDAY - MAYDAY!
bring back the recipe segment! i'm putting a "poor person's dolma" recipe up soon at curtains.
i linked you on this post.
Happy May Day!
Ren... I didn't know May day originated from Australia... Thanks for the info! take care and have a lovely May day...
Kawania che Keekeru!
"Ye lovers of frolic, who blithsome and gay,
Resolve to be merry on Tammany's Day;
I Farmer the Sachem, to some surnamed John,
For a moment would like your attention on yon.
In barbarous days, ere America rose
The pride of her Friends, and the scourge of her foes,
Old Tammany bounding o'er valley and hill,
Every deer that he met would constantly kill:
So each of his sons in remembrance of that,
On his birthday displays a Buck's Tail in his hat.
Now those who this tuft emblematic must buy,
To me let them come, and their wants I ll supply.
Since S—dd----S's deer skins I plundered of late,
I their tails can retail at a moderate rate:
‘Tis the joy of my heart all my neighbors to fleece;
Come buy my fine Buck Tails at six-pence apiece."FARMER THE SACHEM."
What does that mean?
It's okay, I've looked it up.
I'm not sure why American's celebrate a man who seems to have brought peace between the Brits and the Native Americans, when the Native Americans were then slaughtered by the 'new' Americans, so to speak.
Is this because you don't like the idea of an International Worker's Day and it's connections to the success of organised labour?
Just curious.
Mayday???
Isn't it a festival celebrated in ancient times where something called capitalism had prevailed?
Happy May Day Ren. As for Facebook 50 years oj, I feel I could sign up to that version now!
Be proud this May Day, Ren...
Hugo gassing the marching workers today...
FJ, why do you celebrate Tammany's Day?
Oh and news on Africa being the cradle of all civilisation here.
And be proud this Tammany's Day FJ...
I celebrate St Tammany's Day for the same reasons that the British celebrate St. George's Day, the Scott's celebrate St. Andrew, the Welsh St. David, the Irish St. Patrick, and the French St. Dennis.
Because we ALL hate native Americans and other minority groups.
G_d you're dumb, Danny.
It's a celebration of white superiority over their inferiors throughout the world.
Just ask any dumb-ass Internationale singing stoolie, he'll tell you.
Wait a minute, that would be YOU!
btw - I add this note just in case you're unable to recognize sarcasm, which in YOUR case is highly likely.
btw - I don't suppose you've heard the motto "E pluribus unum" which originated in America's Tammany Society? We put it on the currency to remind ourselves from whence we came.
4 comments for the price of 1!
To be my knowledge, America has no patron saint, which is what those ones are? Which is why I was curious and asked but if you don't to answer fine by me.
You seem oddly defensive, I was just asking.
I looked up E Pluribus Unum, comes from Moretum by Virgil, it's also the motto of Benfica Football CLub which is cool.
Happy May Day Ren, even if it's to all intents and purposes an entirely different kind of holiday to you as it is to me, all the best nevertheless to you personally.
Red Salute for May Day !
No, 4 comments for the price of 3! And thanks for the history lesson on the origins of the phrase "e pluribus unum." I guess you can occasionally be good for something other than a charge of "racist b*stard!"
Kawania che Keekuru
btw- did you know that after perfidious Albion signed the Treaty of Paris, they continue to supply the Native Americans with weapons and encourage attacks against the colonies. Just thought you'd want to know who the people responsible for the slaughter of so many "Native Americans" were. Cheers! ;-)
btw - Here's your 2fer...
Of course, that all happened after the British and French and run out of Native American troops in the French-Indian War of the 50's... Huron AND Iroquois, etc., etc. etc. and in squabbles during the nearly 200 years preceding the American Revolution. You could almost say, that by the time of the American Revolution, there were very few "Native Americans" left for the other "native Americans" to kill... Perhaps that's why Britain lost the war...
Happy genociding,
Two for one indeed, verbosity on the old CV is it?
Cool.
Are you denying the genocide of native Americans by Americans? I can't wait to see you do that. You do know about the 'Indian Wars' that spanned 1775-1918, the Removal Act and the massacres carried out in California in the 1850s? Nevermind the crimes carried out on these peoples by siccessive US governments, it is one of the US's most dire historical episodes. Would you deny this?
I seem to detect in your comment a denial that the indigenous peoples are America are American at all?
You also seem to suggest that by the time of the revolution there wasn't any Native Americans left?
Which is clearly nonsense but I am interested at how you arrive at the idea that the native Americans were not so and how that, when all sources document the atrocities against Native Americans carried out for many years, you seem to deny them?
I mention all of this because of your use of a native American to celebrate today, which seems an odd choice when they have been so badly hurt by the American people, so to speak and I also cannot help but note that the last 2 May Day's you haven't celebrated it, which would suggest that you do so purely in opposition to the idea of an International Workers Day because of it's connection to the despised socialism.
This in turn looks like taking positions just to be contrary, in turn this means you take positions you don't actually care about or believe in, which in turn suggests an element of fakery.
All quite interesting indeed.
Manifest Destiny has much blood on her hands it would seem?
Also, many Native Americans sided with the UK against the foundling nation with a view to stopping the expansionist policies, exceptions being the Lenape and the Onondaga.
Then we leap to the Northwest Indian War and on it goes.
Terrible stuff indeed wouldn't you agree?
ren - i submit my dolma creation for your next recipe post.
Daniel. I deny it was a genocide, categorically. We American's LOVE native Americans, as most of us WERE BORN HERE.
Besides, I'm not the one who should be apologizing for past colonial injustices, as I didn't commit any of them. Perhaps Hugo Chavez should be apologizing for one today, think? I mean JUST TODAY, GASSING a MAY DAY WORKER'S PARADE. Come on... if that's how you "Socialists of the 21st Century" handle the "redress of grievances", I'd be looking for a new ideology.
The only reason Americans committed "genocide" on Indians is because Americans won the Indian Wars. The hostilites were based more on centuries old grievances going back to the French and Indian War, on through to the Revolutionary War and War of 1812. When the Indian Wars were fough in the mid-to-late eighteen hundreds, those old wounds and grievances were still relatively fresh, on both sides of the conflict, especially the War of 1812. There were people living in the 1870's with memories of those days, and even more who were very familiar with first-hand accounts, however skewed they may or may not have been.
As for the atrocities of the later Indian Wars, as in the previous one, had the moccasin been on the other foot, it would have been the same story, only in reverse.
A couple of other points. The term American is a national term indicating US citizenship. Indians were not Americans until they were granted US citizenship with, I think, the Fourteenth Amendment.
Final point-Native American is an artificial and politically correct term that has no legitimate meaning as applied solely to American Indians. The term Indian has nothing to do with their being falsely considered of Asian Indian or of West Indies origin. The word is a form of the Latin "In Dios", which means something like, I think, people of God. It was applied to them as a way of describing their apparent closeness to nature.
They might choose to disown that term, which would be their right, but they are no more legitimately entitled to the term "Native American" than any other citizen born and raised in the US.
The point is that Daniel's so focused on 200 year old social injustices that his people were responsible for initiating that he gives a PASS to injustices being committed TODAY. Talk about "out of touch with reality!"
Larry: Happy Mayday
Tony: I plagiarized your comment on Facebook.
Mohamed: The Democratic Party is not even a social democratic party. They are hostile to socialism in any form. They don't even support universal healthcare. After the midterm elections there will be no doubt how reactionary Obama really is.
Nanc: Happy Mayday.
I'll use your recipe. It will be the first time I ever plugged a rightist blog. I'm selling out for some dolma.
Mehmet Çagatay: Don't forget the Pagan origins. See this.
Suman Chowdhury: Comradely greetings.
Jams: As for Facebook 50 years oj, I feel I could sign up to that version now!Not quite.
Nevin: The formal holiday of Mayday, is a US product.
FJ: If you violate a march permit, and try to storm a government building, you can expect state repression. You didn't mention it was the smaller march in Venezuela.
Daniel enjoys creativity. That is well known. Except when you talk about Venezuela, you're otherwise cryptic. In the South Africa discussion, you didn't directly address Sentinel. It's not your blog, and you don't have to address others at all, still you didn't want to directly side with him or attack him. I found humor in that.
Daniel has been civil towards you. His politics are quite different than mine. I doubt he knows the words to The Internationale.
Daniel: FJ does the same Mayday post every year. The people who comment on his blog seem to understand what he is saying.
I'm missing something.
Pagan: They can call themselves anything they want.
If you violate a march permit, and try to storm a government building, you can expect state repression. You didn't mention it was the smaller march in Venezuela."Storm a government building"???? Where in the film above did THAT even remotely appear to happen? You would make a good apologist for Bull Conner in Montgomery, Alabama. I can hear you now, "Yep, we turned on the fire hoses and released the dogs because they were violating their march permit and obstructing traffic..."
...if I didn't appear to be taking sides in the argument over South Africa, it's only because I know very little about what's going on in South Africa. Since apartheid ended, we seem to get very little news on the subject here. Of course, I suspect it's kept that way deliberately. We can only speak "affirmatively" about "governments of colour." Criticism would be too "Euro-centric" for them to understand...? "Critical Theory" must only be practiced in analyzing first world "white" regimes and in forcing them to "mend" their meritocratic ways. A strictly enforced (totalitarian) social and economic equality must be achieved.
ren - i've taken the political compass test twice and both times came out JUST a smidgeon left of center, so please don't label me like that. i believe according to the truth that is set before me. truth doesn't change, only my perception of it, so i can and do change my mind on some matters.
FJ:
Genocide is indeed a moot point and I am more than aware that the biggest killer of Native Americans was disease brought by the European settlers and then the follwing outbreaks of further illness spread from the new American communities.
Also FJ, the term Native Americans is one accepted globally as referring to the indiginous peoples who lived on the North American continent before Europeans came.
Unless of course you come from Native American stock? Is that the case? What are you family roots?
I wouldn't expect you to apologise or think it necessary but I see that a motion for an official US government apology for the atrocities carried out on the Native Americans is making some progress. I am surprised this hasn't already happened.
And FJ, it looks silly when all you do is point the finger at someone else, as if that then discounts the acts that were carried out by others.
But glad to see you accept you have little knowledge on South Africa, a break through!
Pagan:
Interesting stuff and I am sure that the Native Americans would've committed an act of genocide on the colonists if they had won, such is the horror of war but doesn't make it any better.
And wouldn't you agree that humility in the victor is the quality of a great nation?
As for the semantics of the term, I prefer to use what the person in question likes, which seems to be Native American, thus, as Ren says, they can call themselves what they like.
Renegade:
Humour found indeed. :-)
ALL:
Does anyone know who the American government have ever officially apologised to, out of curiosity?
LOL! And when have the communists and/ or socialists ever apologized for the 100 million needless deaths they inflicted on their own people in the former USSR, China and southeast Asia?
You criticize America... VERY small potatoes in comparison.
Hugo Chavez kicked American and foreign medical missionaries out of Venezuela. He replaced them with NOTHING. How many deaths has he caused THOSE indigenous in the past few years? Hundreds? Thousands?
You don't give a sh*t about brown people. You're an apologist for genocide. Hugo and Evo blame Europeans for countless atrocities... yet THEY are as bad, no, WORSE than ANYONE or ANY ECONOMIC SYSTEM they replaced.
btw - There are no autochthonous peoples. We are ALL immigrants/ emigrants. And all that really matters in the end, is who is here now.
And if you don't understand that, then you're a bigger fool than I previously thought.
Nanc: Generally your views are on the conservative side.
FJ: By not directly supporting Sentinel, that was a smart move.
Atleast you're writing without that cryptic stuff.
It's correct that what matters is now. There is something visceral that matters. To Jews the Nazi experience, Afro Americans the slavery experience, and to Native Americans the national question. You need to move on, but there is a need to look back. It's not always rationale, because it's so visceral.
I don't think Stalinists will apologize for anything.
See this. Your account didn't mention those who abstained from both marches. You didn't mention the official march hardly at all.
I'm not a Chavista. I'm a revolutionary socialist, taking advantage of openings in Venezuela.
Daniel: See my note to FJ.
i am a christian, ren. there are few, if any, grey areas for which to immerse myself in.
Your account didn't mention those who abstained from both marches. You didn't mention the official march hardly at all.They didn't GAS them. Now look HARD at what the "neutrals" said about the government's behavior in your post.
btw - I didn't see any of the imaginary barriers broken down before the police opened fire, did you? They all look like they're in place to me.
"By not directly supporting Sentinel, that was a smart move."
Not that I have any overriding need for 'support' in any case, but what does that really mean? I expressed a reasoned opinion and backed it up with plenty of evidence.
On a more positive note, we had 60 people at our May Day dinner, ten more than last year and not bad for a small city where May Day had not been celebrated since the 1950's. There were members of the District Labour Council, a member of the Legislature, lots of youth and members of the NDP, Greens and CP present. Haymarket was not white-washed as it so often is, but the revolutionary aspect of the Martyrs was mentioned by most speakers, including, of course, your truly.
Sentinel: I take back my comment.
Nanc: My world has more grey in it. I like symthesizing opposing positions into one.
Larry G: The march was good here, the program afterwards was an abortion. The Maoists and reformists like guerilla theater.
FJ: I wouldn't call them neutrals either. They don't want to be directly connected to the opposition.
I'll be able to watch the video this evening. Even rightist sources say they tried to get through a barricade.
We had 130 marching in Missoula and this year we attracted the "black bloc" wannabees and the police, always an interesting combo.
Hugo could have used the opportunity to round them all up and put them on a boat to Miami ( or FJs town) but he showed restraint. Every year the Moron Brigade tries to provoke a violent showdown to ignite another coup attempt and every year they turn.
A communist style May Day festival. In Missoula. I'm assuming Montana. I bet that was a great source of local mirth, to say the least.
Hugo showed "restraint" by shooting rubber bullets and firing tear gas at a march filled with women and old people... Yeah, he was about as restrained as Bull Conner was in Alabama in the 60s. But then Bull Conner's reaction really was rather timid from a socialist point of view when compared to more infamous socialists like Stalin, Lenin or Mao who either sent the opposition to the gulag or outright killed them.
Bull Connor was attacking people fighting racism. The Venezuelan cops were attacking reactionaries, the sort of people who if put back in power would kill torture and thousands in an orgy of revenge as they did in Chile in 1973 and Argentina in 1976.
Hugo shows far more restraint than I would...
Hugo does no more or no less than he can get away with. Venezuela is almost as divided a country as the US. He doesn't have the backing yet to really let loose. I'm not saying he would if he had it, just that there's no way to tell until and if he gets it.
the sort of people who if put back in power would kill torture and thousands in an orgy of revenge...What a load of sh*t! He gasses small businessmen and university students who just want him to STOP robbing them and leave them alone.
Pagan: Missoula is much more liberal than you picture. I believe Nader captured it one year.
Troutsky: Minneapolis also has a Pagan Mayday, with political marchers in the back. It's attended by thousands.
FJ: Lenin dealt with invaders from over twenty countries.
Chavez is a social democrat. His party is in the second international.
The marchers were what's left of those who tried to sabotage the oil industry in Venezuela. Their strike was a lockout, or a bosses strike.
I posted before, about how well the opposition is paid by NGOs from the US.
Larry: The end of the opposition, was having Bush's immediate endorsement after the coup.
FJ: Lenin dealt with invaders from over twenty countriesSo why punish the Kulaks? Oh, that's right. EVERYONE must reduced to conditions of absolute poverty and dependence upon the State for their means of support... I forgot. You can't have "wealthy" slaves walking around, they might ignore Lenin's next orders written into the Gosplan.
Hmmm, seems to be a similarity between the kulaks and Chavez's so-called opposition... think?
FJ: Hmmm, seems to be a similarity between the kulaks and Chavez's so-called opposition... think?Hard to disagree.
FJ:
You're funny, your arguing technique breaks down into two parts.
1) HEY! LOOK OVER THERE AT WHAT THOSE TERRIBLE GUYS DID!
2) You block quote Plato or Nietzsche
I like how dismissive you are of the suffering of the Native Americans by saying: "And all that really matters in the end, is who is here now." You transplant those words into the mouth of, let's say a Polish man, with regards to the Holocaust and you see how flippant and facile it is. It's not as simple as that FJ, well, only it seems when you want to sweep something under the carpet.
Oh and as for US government offical apologies, the ones I can find are an apology for the horrors of Japanese Internment, apologies to uranium miners, apologies to people in Nevada for the nuclear tests, also a big sorry to Native Hawaiians for overthrowing the elected government and finally, an apology for a syphilis study where Black males were experimented on and infected with the disease.
And let us not forget Bush jnr. nearly apologsing for slavery.
also a big sorry to Native Hawaiians for overthrowing the elected government The queen was elected? Who knew?
And what's youe arguing technique? You've got one. No matter what anyone says, you dismiss them as racist, sexist or homophobe.
I went back to my comment on the 2nd at 15:40 and see that all of my points have been unchallenged, which is good but one thing I would like to mention again in hope you'll answer it.
What are you family roots?
As for Hawaii, it seems it was the first (and only?) time that the US has apologised for overthrowing the legitmate government of a sovereign nation.
And silly you FJ, the Queen was just a figurehead, Hawaii at that time had an elected government and a constitution. That must have slipped through your knowledge net.
As for my arguing technique, (which you mention in typical LOOK OVER THERE fashion) it seems to be working very well when countering your arguments.
Hawaii at that time had an elected government and a constitution....a constitution that the queen decided she was going to re-write, leading to her inevitable overthrow. Learn some history, then come argue with me.
And I won't answer your one and only arguing point. My race is irrelevant.
Now why won't you answer my points about British support of the warring Indian tribes leading to their repression? Why didn't the British honor the Treaty of Paris? Perfidious Albion, indeed.
As someone familiar with a regent's limitations once a monarchy becomes one of the "constitutional" variety, I'm sure the English people never allowed their sovereign to re-write and redefine THEIR rights at the King's will. So I'm sure you can understand how Her Majesties subjects felt when she announced that she was doing the same...
ps - And please, feel free to explain all British and other foreign intrigues affecting her decision...
Hi FJ!
Oh dear, wrong again, she inherited a constituion and government system that has been forced through over her father's head that excluded native hawaiians from the voting process and gave increased powers to Americans, hence, when she was trying to level the playing field and give native Hawaiians equal rights, she was removed, hence the US government apologising.
Or did you think they just apologised for the fun of it? I mean, seriosuly, why did oyu think the US government, never big on apology, felt compelled to do so on this subject matter?
We all know how hard it is to get an official government apology from any government but on this subject matter, the US government did just that.
I thought you knew your American history but then again, you didn't seem to think the US had done anything to apologise for, which turned out to be wrong, as you were on patron saints, the source of the latin you attribute to the Native American and Native American suffering and terminology.
I was just curious about your roots but fair enough if you don't want to share, you're not the only one who likes to hide such things; fair play to you.
As for your LOOK OVER THERE AND SEE WHAT THEY DID. FJ, you've not conceaded a single point to me, when I'm correct on something, as I have been on many things in this discussion, you just move on.
Which is fine but it comes across, along with your arguing technique, as petulent, childish and rather spolit and closed minded.
It was the Native Americans who chose to side with the Brits for fear for the expansionist colonists, they chose the wrong side but their reason for doing so proved to be prescient.
I'm not quite sure how the British have any involvement in the colonists treatment of Native Americans, you do realise it looks like you're trying to blame the destruction of a culture by Americans on the British, which in turn looks like not taking responsibility and finger pointing...I'm noticing a pattern here.
Which you further prove by rattling on about British government systems, fine, it's an open topic to discuss whatever but one can't help but feel you just duck out of questions you don't like and point at the opponent and go LOOK AT WHAT THEY DID!
My interest was in your use of the Tammney, which we've explored here in some details, the Treaty of Paris is of little interest to me I'm afraid, being as it's over 200 years old and only one article of it is still in force.
The British had everything to do with the colonists treatment of Indians, going back to the French and Indian War. Washington was one of the major players in that war as well, only this time on the side of the Brits, against the French and the Indians. That was the actual origin of Indian repression. The Indians in those and in two later wars were utter barbarians in the way they acted on the battlefield, and off. To call their actions the utmost savagery would be glossing over.
And no, that does not make the perpetual cruelty inflicted on later generations of them right, nor do I condone or excuse that. It does however explain it. Context is everything. It's just too simplistic to talk about the evil American colonists and evil Americans and how they treated those poor Indians without that context as seen through the eyes of people with fresh wounds and memories.
It's easy today for people to wax poetic about maltreatment of the Indians, our grandfathers, brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers weren't the ones kidnapped, raped, tortured and emasculated.
Pagan:
This looks like one thing and one thing only, a failure to accept and take full responsibility.
It's like a Nazi German blaming the Allied forces of the Great War for establishing a punishing economic framework, forcing them to remove the Jews from the planet.
Of course the actions of the victors provide context for the actions of the Nazi but they do not lessen the horror of the act.
As in this case, which obviously, is a million miles away from the acts of the Nazis, this material is context but not justification.
And I hate to bring this back up but in simplistic terms, colonists were on their land, so the brutality of their fighting seems all fair in love and war.
Why should I take full responsibility. I didn't do it. For that matter, the whole idea of a nation apologizing for its actions is utter bullshit. Quite simple, there is no possible way to apologize. If somebody walked up to me tomorrow bitching that my great-great-grandfather killed his great-great grandfather in a gunfight, and that my great-great grandfather lured him into the gunfight and cheated, what do I owe him? I don't owe him a damn thing.
Don't misunderstand, I realize there were abominable actions committed, but they were committed by BOTH SIDES. That's the point. Everybody that brings this up seems to want to gloss over the very real contribution the Indians made to the scenario, and that's just not right.
Of course the Americans did stuff they should not have done. For example, I remember one account where some white soldiers invaded an Indian settlement, raped, tortured, murdered, and mutilated women, old people, and children. In one example, a woman's breasts were cut off, and some soldiers tossed it around back and forth like it was a ball.
Okay, fine, that was horrible, and no reasonable person would justify and excuse that sort of atrocity.
Then again, here's another point. Did that really happen? So much of this stuff is hearsay, you just don't know for sure what really happened, what was made up, what might have been just more rabble-rousing to stir discontent.
All I know is, there were atrocities committed on both sides, in addition to the very real historical fact that both the French and the British had a very real influence in creating the conditions and otherwise encouraging the initial sets of atrocities.
As for it was their land, another thing people gloss over is that in a great many cases, the land was purchased, or the Indians in some cases were recompensed after the fact. I don't suggest they were always fairly compensated, because I know that would be a bullshit claim to make, but they were fairly compensated in some cases.
In the case of Kentucky, no Indian tribes claimed it as their land. They didn't believe in ownership of the land. This is a very real though little known fact. Kentucky was used as a hunting ground, but very few if any people actually lived there on an kind of a regular basis, aside from maybe a few limited areas near the Ohio River.
Daniel Boone still made treaties with them and tried to deal with them for the purpose of the establishment of settlements. He was the vanguard of the British resistance against the colonial settlers in Kentucky in the Revolutionary War. The British allies in the war in Kentucky? The Indians, of course. But nobody wants to look at anybody doing anything wrong aside from the white settlers, the colonists.
People do the same thing regarding the Mexican War, as though it was no more complicated than the American government wanted the Southwest so they took it from the Mexicans. It was far more complicated than that, though the drive for territorial acquisition was certainly a very important factor.
What the American critics don't tell you is that a great lot of that American Southwest territory was purchased from Mexico AFTER the Mexican War was fought and concluded by treaty. President Franklin Pierce purchased a great lot of that territory, large portions of Arizona and New Mexico, through the Gadsden Purchase, several years after the war over and done with.
So that's the problem there, it's not that Americans want to deny their contribution to the problem of atrocities and maltreatment of Indians, it's that the Indians and American critics don't want to admit to atrocities and maltreatment on any other side. They want to blame everything on the Americans. Again, that's just not right. It's not right morally, and its not right historically. The same with the Mexican War.
Sure, its easy to say now, that if I had lived in those days, I would have encouraged restraint, and at least some degree of mercy, and certainly fair treatment for the women, children, and elderly. But that's just the problem, nobody has the right or the ability to speak for people in those times as to what they should have done or would have done in their place, because nobody here today lived it.
Pagan that comment is verging on the too long to read, considering the content of this open thread.
I wasn't accusing you personally, it is a more general covering of blame connected to what a nation has done, you personally have no blame on your shoulders, obviously.
Government apologies are important.
But I still sense that you feel that the Native Americans were equal partners in the horror, which they were not, I'm not sure why you feel so strongly about this, after all, your side won but they were there first and you kciked their ass to get the entire continent to yourselves, which is fine but I don't know how you can be agressor and play victim, this is a trick normally only the GOP try and play.
Your arguement boils down to: the evidence is made up about US atrocities and we bought the land off them fair and square.
Neither hold water in a serious debate on the history of America, rather than trying to erase it, just accept it and move on, no one cares really what happened all that time ago and most nations are built on the destruction of one people or another.
I think you and FJ sometimes come from a school of thought were the US can do nothing wrong and if it does then it was either:
1) provoked
2) enemy asked for it
3) wasn't as bad as it seems
4) you should've seen what they did to us
Humility in victory is a blessing, as is humility in general. Also, you move on one has to accept ones failings, otherwise you start to feel you can't fail and that when you do, it HAS to be someone elses fault.
Hubris in other words and that is not a very attractive quality.
And believe it or not, my contribution to this thread was not about taking America down a peg or two, it was totally about FJ's celebration of Tammney and my curiousity on that front.
All nations are flawed, picking at the scabs is pointless but it is alarming if you don't even acknowledge the wound.
She inherited a constituion and government system that has been forced through over her father's head that excluded native hawaiians from the voting process and gave increased powers to Americans, hence, when she was trying to level the playing field and give native Hawaiians equal rights, she was removed, hence the US government apologizing.Bullsh*t. ethnic Hawaiians still amounted to about two-thirds of the electorate for representatives and about one-third of the electorate for Nobles. (Kuykendall, Hawaiian Kingdom at 453. The rest of the voters were male residents of European or American ancestry.)The native Hawaiians were not disenfranchised, Asians were. And they were disenfranchised due to literacy and property requirements, which is TYPICAL IN A REPUBLIC, as the "patricians" are the ones who ensure the survival of the new government and prevent it from degenerating into a "looting" of the state treasury. The vast majority of white males in America COULD NOT VOTE after the US Constitution was passed. It takes years to instill a REPUBLICAN form of government upon a former monarchy, and the "masses" are not capable of doing much but sell their votes to the highest bidder.
You're knowledge of history is too simplistic. The US tends to apologize for LOTS of things these days that it has NO BUSINESS apologizing for.
Native Americans who chose to side with the Brits for fear for the expansionist colonists, they chose the wrong side but their reason for doing so proved to be prescient.Yes, they chose to fight America. We respect and honor their bravery. They were free men and did what free men do. Tammanend is now and always will be America's saint. For we are free and will either remain so, or die fighting.
Do you know what the later New York Tammany Society's function was? To give working men the right to vote. The New York wigwams used to register it's members on all their property deeds, thereby enfranchising the hundreds of thousands of voters needed to ELIMINATE property requirements as a condition of voting. This wasn't achieved in New York City until the 1830s.
But I still sense that you feel that the Native Americans were equal partners in the horror, which they were not,You denigrate the contributions of every Native American who died fighting for their beliefs and way of life with THAT comment. Take your condescending limey superior attitude and shove it up your ass. They may have been underdogs, outmanned and outgunned, but they were EVERY bit an EQUAL partner in the conflict AND resulting "horrors."
Funny how you mention denigrating Native Americans when you've dismissed their losses, challenged the legitimacy of their name and claim to the continent and even suggested that they didn't exist. Now you toot their horn?
Hypocrite sandwich you're munching on their chap?
Or is that the insults you're throwing around? Don't lower the tone by asking me to shove things up my ass please. I know how much anal sex acts disturb you so best to keep your cool.
I think your Hawaii argument boils down to the fact that the US did nothing wrong and that they shouldn't have apologised.
You're in denial, why fight a cause already lost many, many years ago? The US overthrew a democractically elected regime that didn't want to be overthrown due to expansionist policies.
That's it.
What you're suggesting is very, very improbable, ie: that it wasn't an overthrow and thus the US government apologised for nothing. Forgive me but I'll take what actually happened over the take you have, a take you're pushing in the vain hope of trying to win this point, after I pointed out that the US government has apologised for a few things.
Glad to see you're not challenging Internment as a blight on US history but sure you may have a go.
What next for you? Civil Rights movement was not needed?
Again, sorry to bang on about this but he wasn't a saint. Lovely man no doubt but not a saint.
And also America doesn't have a saint.
I mean you can make him a saint and the American saint but then I could make myself a Doctor and the offical pet of the UK a Yorkshire Terrier. Doesn't make it so.
I'm glad you mentioned the Tammany Society as I was wondering what you make of the Democratic connection with your "saint", I thought that would rule him out of your wish list of great people.
Or do you see it as a mis-use of his name and legacy?
Glad to see you're not challenging Internment as a blight on US history but sure you may have a go.I don't see it as a blight on US history at all. I see it as just one in very long and countless list of examples of "mommy government over-reach", but then, the whole FDR administration, like the current Obama administration is just so much "mommy government over-reach".
I find the original Philadelphia revolutionary organization and the 2nd generation Tammany Societies to be perfect uses of Tammanend's name and legacy. The first society disbanded itself after achieving it's goals, the second became corrupt and was killed off at the ballot box when Ed Koch finally beat out Tammany Hall for the workingman's vote in the 60's.
Of course, the idea for St. Tammany was one borrowed from the British. When William Penn wanted to steal an empire in the new owrld, he simply picked the nearest old Lene Lenape Native American up off the street, gave him a handful of beads, a bolt of cloth, and then commissioned a commemorative painting under s spreading "oak tree" documenting the "legal" transfer of the land surrounding Philadelphia and half of what is today Pennsylvania via "treaty".
The colonists soon caught on to the British trick, and let Tammanend sign a treaty with them giving THEM the right to hunt and fish in the woods for all perpetuity. So much for King John owning the "surrounding forests" and preventing non-British colonists from expanding westward. Robin Hood won't be beholding to the king for his daily ration of venison in America.
You really should do a study of British colonial history. I highly recommend that you read about the visit of the four Indian kings (who were mostly Dutch half-breeds) to London. Funny that an Indian chief responsible for transferring sooooo much land to Sir William Johnson had a Dutch surname, isn't it? King Hendrick was a real trip. Especially in his second incarnation.
Perfidious Albion, we learned all that we did from YOU.
The claim of so-called aboriginal or Native Americans to the continent is moot. They never "owned" the continent. To own property you must have title AND maintain the capacity to defend it. My motto, and that of Tammany is Kawania che Keekuru which roughly translated means, "Such is my RIGHT, and I will DEFEND it."
And if you can't defend it, then you never had it to begin with. Life's a bitch. Get used to it.
And Obama is not going to do to us "native Americans" what the British did to "Native Americans." We WILL defend out rights. Kawania che Keekeru! We will NOT be "socialized" out of all of our possessions through "legal" maneuvers or "official" decree's from on high. "Oficialismo" may work for Chavez in keeping half the world unaware of his thefts, but it ain't gonna work in America.
Seen it. Done it.
We ARE the snake loosely coiled mark of Tammanend. Don't tread on me!
Join or die!
Wow, even for you 6 is verbosity gone mad.
Quality not quantity FJ.
So we are clear that Japanese Internment was a bad thing? Great! Common ground!
Also, glad to see your position on the Tammney Hall thing, good to know.
And good to know that America owes Britain so much, I feel the love from across the waters FJ.
Let's hug!
Unless of course you're trying to blame everything on us...again, in which case we've dealt with that and isn't taking responsibility part of growing up?
Who'd have thought it...
"The claim of so-called aboriginal or Native Americans to the continent is moot. They never "owned" the continent."
They lived here, colonists didn't colonists arrived and took over the entire continent.
Job done.
Glad to see you flip-flop on Native American rights again when it suits you.
And nice to see you overreact to the Obama adminstration again by invoking the spirit the a people you've just told to stop bitching.
How about you stop bitching perhaps?
No chance of that.
So we are clear that Japanese Internment was a bad thing.It was a needless precaution. It was neither "good" or "bad". It was "needless."
Unless of course you're trying to blame everything on us...again, in which case we've dealt with that and isn't taking responsibility part of growing up?Does it sound like I'm "blaming you". No, just getting you to acknowledge the fallen nature of your own humanity and participation in it.
Let's hug!You'll have to get your jollies someplace else, Danny.
They lived here, colonists didn't colonists arrived and took over the entire continent.Sure, they lived here AFTER they migrated in from Africa. They're just immigrants, too. That doesn't make them any "better" than those who came later. Had they been "better" they would have stopped us.
Glad to see you flip-flop on Native American rights again when it suits you. Flip-flop? Since when did Native American's have any rights? The only rights you have are those you can defend. They aren't granted by G_d. They don't come from His Majesty's Constitutions and their many legal revisions or the latest legal ruling from SCOTUS. They come from your own defense of them.
How about you stop bitching perhapsKawania che Keekeru!
Well, I'll just say that I never intended to excuse American atrocities, or deny them. My only point was and remains that there were atrocities on both sides of the equation. It was not a one-sided affair as far as atrocities goes.
My main point and really my main bitch against the Indian apologists is just that they see things with this tunnel vision of white Europeans overrunning the continents and killing off the Indians through disease and warfare, and stealing their land.
Nobody seems to want to trace the entirety of the historical facts. How The French and Indian War, and to a lesser extent the Revolutionary War, ensured that hatreds and hostilities smoldered for decades, and once they erupted again during the War of 1812, this insured the hostilities and hatreds would continue smoldering for decades afterward, finally culminating in successive waves of hysteria and bloodshed throughout the Indian Wars with the Sioux and Apache, mainly, in the 1870's and 1880's.
That's all I'm trying to do, is encourage people to trace the entire history of the relations between the two people and see how they are all interconnected and intertwined. I'm not denying or excusing anything.
At the same time, people need to wrap their heads around the concept that just because a people is native to a land and may seem to be close to nature and all that, it doesn't mean they were automatically good people.
These were people who seem to have changed little from the days they arrived on the American continent, sometime evidently between the invention of the bow and arrow and the invention of the wheel. There was little social or political development, for the most part of the history of the vast majority of tribes.
Imagine going back twenty-thousand years and running into a tribe of people living back then, what kind of people they would be. It might not be so pretty.
When Columbus landed in the New World, the first people he met amounted to two different Indian tribes. The stronger one preyed constantly on the other one. When they would capture the young males of the weaker tribe, they would castrate them and raise them as livestock. Once they were sufficiently fattened up, they would eat them.
I'm not saying this as a means of excusing atrocities committed by whites against them, especially against the aged, the infirm, women and children. I'm just saying this myth of the so-called noble savage is just that, a myth. These people could be as vicious and blood-thirsty as any group of people that ever walked the planet. And in many cases, they proved that point beyond any doubt.
FJ:
So you have no judgment on the horror of Japanese Internment, another thing America apologised for and rightly so? It was just needless?
Glad we've got your moral compass point on that...
It sounds like everything is always someone elses fault, that is what most of your arguments come down to, a ducking of responsibility so to speak.
Worry less about other people accepting their errors and more about welcoming your own.
And shame on you for refusing a manly hug, you seem scared old bean?
Oh and nice bit of revisionist nonsense with rolling back heritage, if we follow that argument, you're an African FJ, which we all are of course but that's not the point.
Again you're ducking out instead of taking it on the chin, a shame really.
And I never said anyone was better than anyone else, that's the job of Sentinal and his ideas of racial supremacy.
"The only rights you have are those you can defend."
So you invoke the spirit of Native Americans when it suits you and then claim they ahve no rights, boy to you flip-flop a lot when it suits you. You use people and ideas to support your point, then deny them when it suits you.
You should be in politics but as your views are quite fringe I'm not sure you'd find a party to back you.
But if you compromise enough I think you could sneak on some kind of ticket.
Good luck with that!
I think these guys prefer the alternate ending to Apocalypto, PT.
Hi Pagan! A long one there.
Sure there are atrocities on both sides, that's a given but that is never an excuse for the acts in the first place, otherwise we all degenerate to finger pointing and we know how daft that is.
And I'd still say that the US outdid any acts committed by the Native Americans, they were the winners after all.
"My main point and really my main bitch against the Indian apologists is just that they see things with this tunnel vision of white Europeans overrunning the continents and killing off the Indians through disease and warfare, and stealing their land."
You seem to have it in a nutshell there. The rest is just context for the act, context, as I've said, is just that.
And passing judgments on ancient civilisations is never wise, with hindsight, we're all barbarians.
the horror of Japanese Internment,Yes the "horror" of expropriation and 3 squares a day. Wait a minute, isn't that what the socialsits are promising us all?
shame on you for refusing a manly hug,You'd have to be a man for that to be true.
you're an African FJActually, according to the US Census Bureau, I'm a member of the "human" race.
then claim they ahve no rights.Not true. They can have all the rights they're capable of defending, but no others.
But if you compromise enough I think you could sneak on some kind of ticket.Indeed. But then I'd be no better than Barack Obama.
ps - "Whites" have committed NO crimes against humanity. "Whites" don't exist. Only individual people have committed crimes. And if I'm not one of the criminals in question, then fuck off with your accusations.
What happened to Native Americans was a tragedy, a GREAT tragedy, an HEROIC tragedy. It was not, however, a crime. May I die as well one day.
"And I never said anyone was better than anyone else, that's the job of Sentinal and his ideas of racial supremacy."
Daniel, you really do seem to have the twisted ability to drag a debate and thread into the gutter each time; as I said, you're whole approach is groundless hysterical labels and infantile defamation and you even feel the need to do it with people that are not even involved in you're car crash of a 'debate.'
I have already firmly established that you are a pretentious liar with no integrity, a puerile debater of no substance and you just keep on adding new and further dimensions to it.
Instead of you're constant empty bold statements devoid of both evidence and rationale, why don't you try using proof and reason? Or why even bother?
Still, I suppose you get satisfaction as you have got some more attention. Is that all you are really after?
"May I"
It has a nice ring to it, don't you think?
I wasn't judging them Daniel, I was just pointing out that its fallacious to view them as the peace-loving children of nature who would never willingly or purposely harm a living creature, as so many Indian apologists seem to try to portray them.
Another point, you seem to imply that the settlers were more barbaric and savage than the Indians based on the fact that they "won". Well, that proves you are not well versed on military tactics and strategy. There have been great victories won while incurring greater losses on the winning side than those suffered by the losing side, all to gain an advantage that in retrospect did not seem worth such sacrifice. This is what is called a Pyrrhic victory.
More importantly, though, tactics and strategy in warfare is based on trying to achieve the great victory without the incurring of great losses on either side, whenever possible. This is an admirable and worthy goal on a humane level, but just as importantly, it is also a worthy goal on the practical level, as it limits the use of resources and the risk of greater loss of life and limb on the side of the victor.
It's not always possible against a well-matched foe, or against one who stubbornly refuses to retreat or surrender against all reasonable odds of success, but it is nevertheless the goal of warfare to achieve victory, not merely to take life. A sure and final victory does just that, ends the loss of life. Had the Indians never been soundly defeated, who knows how much longer the hostilities would have lasted, how many more lives would have ended on each side, as it seems obvious they never had any intention of giving up for good.
The last time there was a massive resistance against the US government in the late eighteen hundreds, do you know what it was based on? It was based on something called "the Ghost Dance". That was based on the proposition that if all the Indian tribes would unite in conducting a certain ritual, the spirits of the great Indian warriors would enter into the bodies of the then-present and livin Indian warriors, rendering them invincible to the white man's bullets.
The ones who followed that ritual and movement honestly believed themselves to be invincible, totally unstoppable. How do you defeat a foe like that? You would think that once they saw the first initial wave of their comrades falling and bleeding on the ground as they took their last suffering breath, they might have said, "oh fuck wait a minute, something's not right here."
Evidently they were too far gone to entertain such doubts. Or maybe it was just too late to restrain the soldiers who were pretty damn well worked up themselves by then. Whatever the reason, this was the kind of mindset we had to deal with.
Sorry for the long-winded posts on this subject, but this topic is of interest to me, and it boggles my mind that so many people who express an opinion on it seem to be so one-sided in their views. I am not one-sided, far from it. Just trying to present a balanced view, that's all.
Hi F!
So you think Japanese American Internment was okay then? Funny, most people class it as an act of race prejudice, war hysteria and a failure of political leadership. How sad that many Japanese Americans fought evil around the globe while their families were in detention camps.
I like how dismissive you are just because I am picking up this point, I think really you're as ashamed of Japanese Internment as everybody else but just to not concede anything you argue a lost point.
Well done on that fit of pique!
And sorry to break it to you FJ but I am a man. I know these things confuse you but do try and keep up.
And you a member of the human race? You're an African FJ! YAY! Where we all come from, or are you now retreating on your absurb idea that we are all from somehwere else except when it doesn't suit you? Flip-flop again, tut-tut.
So if someone can't defend their rights, ie: the very young, the elderly, they have none? WRONG AGAIN!
Jeez FJ, your ideas are tissue thin but that is because you don't really hold them, you just postulate these positions to be contrary and sustain your moment in the sun.
If you were a tenth of the man that is Obama you'd be alright by me but you're not. Come back to me when you're President, until then, he has one over on you. And I thought a patriot like you backs his President? For patriot swap Republican.
Who mentioned whites? Oh, that'll be you, bringing things in to an a discussion when you've already lost the point to invent a new point to try and argue over.
You must stop making things up that others have said FJ.
"What happened to Native Americans was a tragedy"
Glad we've got that cleared up but your romantisizing of their tragedy is a bit gaudy and in poor taste, you can tell you've never been in a fight in your life, you seem to think all war is like Leonidas defending the pass.
I'm sure dead men, women and children is all very heroic but you sound like those that never serve and glorify those that do out of terrible guilt. But I'm sure it could be arranged for your family to be massacred and mutiliated while you are set on fire.
HOW HEROIC!
And who said it was a crime, just glad you're acknowledging the suffering.
Sentinal:
I don't know what is more disturbing, you eagerly, fervently reading through every comment to see if you get a mention so you can wade in; or the fact that you think I care what you have to type.
You have firmly established nothing, except your own puffed up idea of the worthyness of your racist ideas.
You have provided all the proof and evidence of your racism both here and at your own blog. It speaks volumes.
As for attention, is not you who are wading in here to toot your horn? It is not you who are hawking your tawdy wares here? In a frenzy as you see your 'name' mentioned. It's funny how many hide behind odd names, for fear of putting their real name to their 'ideas'.
But, a coward is always just that.
Pagan:
I never said they were peace loving children of nature, that romantisized view seems to be the one FJ likes to flip flop on.
I think your argument isn't with me but with some elements of American culture that has them perceived as such, I only mentioned them to explore the Tammney thing with FJ.
Regards barbarism, hindsight is a powerful tool, people will look abck at us and say we were barbaric.
And I'll leave military theory to the soldiers.
I think really you're as ashamed of Japanese Internment as everybody else but just to not concede anything you argue a lost point.I am NOT ashamed of Japanese Internment one bit. I had nothing to do with it. That would be FDR that should be feeling some shame, but he's dead. Of course, how many acts of sabotage and terror FDRs actions prevented will never be known, will it.
And sorry to break it to you FJ but I am a man. LOL! A girlie man... and I'm here to pump... YOU up!
You're an African FJ! I've looked across the strait of Gibralter, but no, I've never been. Of course, the human race did originate in Africa, but if I'm an African, you're conceding that I'm Asian, European and Native American as well. So I guess you'd have me proud and ashamed of myself simultaneously.
So if someone can't defend their rights, ie: the very young, the elderly, they have none? WRONG AGAIN! You REALLY are stupid. It's a very simple concept. And no, my children have no "rights". It's my way or the highway. My Dad took the highway.
Jeez FJ, your ideas are tissue thin but that is because you don't really hold them, you just postulate these positions to be contrary and sustain your moment in the sun. I don't? Try me.
I thought a patriot like you backs his President? Sorry, the man's NOT my sovereign, he's a civil servant. His job is to back ME. And let me tell you something right now, I've got a feeling we're going to fire his ass once his current contract's up. He was long on promises, but pulled up short on deliveries.
Who mentioned whites? Oh, that'll be you, bringing things in to an a discussion when you've already lost the point to invent a new point to try and argue over. Which point did I lose. What points of yours did you win? You know you don't win a point unless I concede it, right? That's what a dialectic is. A search for truth. Score's 0 to 0 at the moment.
Glad we've got that cleared up but your romantisizing of their tragedy is a bit gaudy and in poor taste, you can tell you've never been in a fight in your life, you seem to think all war is like Leonidas defending the pass. Suffering is what makes life meaningful. And I've been in lots of fights... but I'm still here, and will remain here. What doesn't kill me, makes me stronger.
I'm sure dead men, women and children is all very heroic but you sound like those that never serve and glorify those that do out of terrible guilt. But I'm sure it could be arranged for your family to be massacred and mutiliated while you are set on fire. I did serve my country for 10 years, as did my elder brother. My father served for 25, although his brother was killed my the Japanese on Iwo Jima. So if anyone's family is likely to be mutilated and set on fire, it's not very likely to be ours, as we defend our rights.
btw - Are the Japanese ever going to apologize to me for killing my uncle? I don't think so. But hey, I can rest easy in the knowledge that we toasted so many of them at Nagasaki and Hiroshima, that I'm satisfied that they learned their lesson. Besides, we gave them their rights. Doug MacArthur wrote the Japanese Constitution. And you'd better be nice to me because it's very likely given your countrys' history that I'll soon be writing yours as well.
Kawania che keekeru!
Aloha!
Okay, so we are clear on your attitude towards Japanese Internment, it wasn't on my watch but I like the idea behind it.
As long as we're clear on that, as you take yet another frnge position.
You pump me up? Look FJ, I know you've got the hots for me but don't talk about pumping me up in public, keep that for our private email back and forth. And as i said, you seem confused on various gender issues, it must be your age.
"Of course, the human race did originate in Africa"
Cool, glad you've accpeted that after all this to and fro. You do know I was calling you an African so you'd drop the silly idea that we're all from somehwere else to stop you having to bite the bullet on the Native American flip-flop you were running? Cool.
How I am wrong and stupid, you said if they can;t defend their rights they have none, the young and the elderly and those with serious mental health issues or the physically disabled have varying degrees of ability to do defend their right. According to you they have none.
I'm only presenting you with your own arguments, don't get so hot under the collar man.
I'm glad your dad took the highway, is that slang for a sex act? I mention this only as you seem to want to 'pump me up' and for me to 'try you'.
IT'S GETTING HOT IN HERE!
Thanks also for clearing up the blind devotion only when it's a Republican. Awesome!
Just to repeat, I never mentioned whites, you said I did and I didn't. Isn't this truth thing good? 8-0 to me!
"Suffering is what makes life meaningful."
Maybe, sure it does for you but we all have our own take on what makes life meaningful, for me, it's a life shared, that's a good place to start.
I suppose then, when signing off I better not wish you all the best, as you'd prefer to have all the suffering.
"What doesn't kill me, makes me stronger."
Until it kills you that is.
Thanks also for all the info on your family and you, we are unpicking the identity behind the letters at last, you see, hiding isn't all it's cracked up to be is it?
"So if anyone's family is likely to be mutilated and set on fire, it's not very likely to be ours, as we defend our rights."
Indeed, you'll be doing the mutiliating and setting on fire. I love all the macho glory ladeled on for effect.
Oh and I knew you couldn't go a whole comment without going:
LOOK OVER THERE! WHAT ABOUT WHAT THEY DID TO US! NEVERMIND WHAT WE DID, I'LL DUCK THAT AND POINT MY FINGER!
Aloha!
keep that for our private email back and forth. We're corresponding? Who knew?
According to you they have none. In MY house, they do have none. You forget that I have abilities as well. You seem to operate under the impression that rights are an "absolute" or one-sided thing. Like everything else in this universe, they're "RELATIVE."
I'm only presenting you with your own arguments, don't get so hot under the collar man. No...you're straw-manning my arguments and knocking down the resulting straw men. Don't blame me for your low comprehension level.
Thanks also for clearing up the blind devotion only when it's a Republican. I never voted for George Bush. I supported his Iraq strategy, that's all... till he went "soft" and started worrying about museums and zoo's.
Maybe, sure it does for you but we all have our own take on what makes life meaningful, for me, it's a life shared, that's a good place to start. Well all I can say to that is, unless you're willing to work or sacrifice/ suffer for something, it probably doesn't have much meaning for you. No wonder gays don't have a right to marry... ;-)
When the truth is a considered a fringe position, then there are likely very few wise men.
And it's time you faced the fact that in a war of words between us, you're unarmed.
I was watching the debate to see if there was anything of interest to comment on actually - quite obviously really - and there wasn't much, watching Daniel typically attempt to dominate the thread with bold statements and flawed logic.
In amongst all of the absurdities Daniel spouts which one to pick though?
Its hard but lets go with "Government apologies are important" - in this case the US apology of the treatment of Native Americans.
Why should a government comprised of people who were not even born when contentious events took place and therefore bear no responsibility or guilt whatsoever - and are representing people of the same innocence - ever apologise for past events?
What possible meaning can it have? And what can it really do other then to open up old divisions?
And where does it end?
Egypt apologising for the exodus? Norwegians, Danes and Swedes apologising for Viking raids? Italy apologising to Gaul (now France) or Christians?
The spectacle of Tony Blair apologising for slavery was cringe worthy - what pretentious and egotistical gesture politics (sounds familiar) that served no purpose whatsoever. Especially as Britain was one of the first countries to abolish slavery and attempted to enforce the abolition.
But why wasn't any country in Africa or Arabia apologising for their part in slavery too - after all the slave trade was only really possible because they facilitated it.
And why didn't Native Americans representatives (after all a government is supposed to be just representation of the people) apologise for keeping African slaves - and in at least one case, "The Chicksaw Nation" long after most were freed?
In the real world. where most of us but Daniel live, the only thing people can apologise for is something that they have control over.
And so here is one to get the five keys that make up the word 'racist' on Daniel keyboard going:
Seeing as Blair did decided as a British representative to apologise for something that effected blacks that he and the current British bear no responsibility for, why cannot representatives of blacks in London and the UK apologise for something they are responsible for: committing the majority of serious crimes in London and the UK i.e shootings, knife crimes and gang rapes?
Surely something that is contemporary and ongoing is much more serious then something that is centuries old and dormant?
And given that it is fact that the majority of these crimes ARE perpetrated by blacks surely it cannot be racist to say it? And seeing as it is a fact that blacks are also massively disproportionately over-represented in these crimes, surely it is not racist to ask why either?
Oh and in response - tit for tat, I guess - to you latest personal comments, Daniel, everything about you screams pretentious muppet:
From you're double barrelled name, you're village people mugshot, you're patently bogus champagne socialist credentials, you're spurious claims of being an 'actor' (and having just listened to you're accent samples I can understand why you have no real work - how embarrassing - that 'London accent' would have ashamed Dick Van Dyke) through to you're pathetic semantic style.
Yet again you provide no evidence for anything, just more empty bold statements.
Make no mistake, I established in the previous thread that you are a liar and completely devoid of integrity, it is there for all to see.
And when Renegade Eye says "Daniel enjoys creativity. That is well known." Do you think that is really just code for Daniel is a liar and makes things up?
You're feelings on internet nom de plumes extend to the majority on this medium, including you're host Renegade Eye, and Pagan Temple, FJ etc etc so you are addressing that bile to them too.
But I am glad you have chosen to call me a coward (a pampered upper class posh twat who hasn't seen a moments combat in his life) Normally I just ignore the taunts of the internet hardman but seeing as we are both in the same city and seeing as you feel so strongly about it we can most certainly meet and continue this train of thought face to face, if you so desire.
Ooops, I almost forgot my "2nd" argument technique. This one's for Daniel.
Nietzsche, "Will to Power"
1067 (1885)
And do you know what "the world" is to me? Shall I show it to you in my mirror? This world: a monster of energy, without beginning, without end; a firm, iron magnitude of force that does not grow bigger or smaller, that does not expend itself but only transforms itself; as a whole, of unalterable size, a household without expenses or losses, but likewise without increase or income; enclosed by "nothingness" as by a boundary; not something blurry or wasted, not something endlessly extended, but set in a definite space as a definite force, and not a sphere that might be "empty" here or there, but rather as force throughout, as a play of forces and waves of forces, at the same time one and many, increasing here and at the same time decreasing there; a sea of forces flowing and rushing together, eternally changing, eternally flooding back, with tremendous years of recurrence, with an ebb and a flood of its forms; out of the simplest forms striving toward the most complex, out of the stillest, most rigid, coldest forms toward the hottest, most turbulent, most self-contradictory, and then again returning home to the simple out of this abundance, out of the play of contradictions back to the joy of concord, still affirming itself in this uniformity of its courses and its years, blessing itself as that which must return eternally, as a becoming that knows no satiety, no disgust, no weariness: this, my Dionysian world of the eternally self-creating, the eternally self-destroying, this mystery world of the twofold voluptuous delight, my "beyond good and evil," without goal, unless the joy of the circle is itself a goal; without will, unless a ring feels good will toward itself--do you want a name for this world? A solution for all its riddles? A light for you, too, you best-concealed, strongest, most intrepid, most midnightly men?-- This world is the will to power--and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power--and nothing besides!
858 (Nov. 1887-March 1888)
What determines your rank is the quantum of power you are: the rest is cowardice..
What's your rank, girlie man?
The only part of my name that is fake is the "The". My family name is Temple and my given name is Pagan. My dad thought it fit.
Daniel-I told you to go back to your old picture. Now you will forevermore be known as the Village Hoffman Gill Person.
Sentinel-I'm not trying to be an ass, but "you're" is a contraction for "you are".
Otherwise, spot on about the business of government issued apologies for past crimes. It is nonsensical. Good point about the contribution of Arabs and other Africans to the slave trade, crimes committed in the here and now by representatives of the same people we are expected to apologize to, etc.
It's like I always say about this nonsense expecting Turkey to apologize for the alleged genocide of Armenians. Not only was that a century ago, it wasn't even the same government. The modern day Democratic government of Turkey can hardly be held to account for the actions of the Ottoman Empire, whom they displaced.
People need to stop and come up for air and put some thought into what these political ass-wipes are doing and saying. Half of the time at the very least, its all a lot of shit.
Pagan Temple, point taken about your / you're - the text editor I sometimes use is fast but basic and I am often to lazy to check back on contex etc.
Very interesting and distinctive name by the way!
Any relation to "Inner/ Middle Temple" of the Inns at Court, the "Franklin's" or Sir William Temple' of Swift's "Battle of the Books" fame?
Not that I know of. My dad said he could tell by looking at me I was going to be a little heathen, but mom said hell no to naming me heathen temple. Somebody else suggested pagan and she didn't know what it meant. He told her it was a great-uncle's name.
HaHaHaHa okay, I'm lying like shit. My name's Patrick Kelley.
Any relation to.... never mind. ;-)
Aloha again!
FJ:
"We're corresponding? Who knew?"
I know, how odd.
Thanks for clearing up your view that children and the elderly have no rights in your house. Thank goodness we don't follow that rule over to the real world...oh hang on, that's what you were actually suggesting. Thankfully, it will just stay in your domain which is all good.
Straw manning? He he, coming from you, the lord of inventing what people said. All I've done is take each of your 'ideas' at face value and explored them, thus exposing them. It's been fun.
And who needs museums and zoo's? Far too liberal for the likes of you!
And also, your values are your values, no one elses, you can pass judgement on my values and try and weight them against yours but that will always fail, also if I did it to you, because we live our own lives, thankfully, not what someone else believes is the life to lead.
Glad we've got that cleared up you judgemental old fox.
You seem to confuse your opinion with the truth, a dangeorus error, your opinion is all well and good but don;t try and pitch it as the 'only way' or the truthful way, that makes you look pompous...again.
"And it's time you faced the fact that in a war of words between us, you're unarmed."
Oh dear, you're delusional now, it's funny, here is thread where I have calmly and constructively taken on your vague and posturing ideas and found them wanting at every stage, so much so that they slip away into nothing, which is what they are, mostly you hold postions here purely to be contrary.
Which is a wee bit daft but, you live through the exchanges here so fair play to you.
Oh and nice block quoting.
Sentinel:
You make me laugh, you expect your excuse to wash? You just happen to be pouring over a thread you have no interest in and think is beneath you? Yeah right, you were feverishly reading every bit to see if you got mentioned, you talk of needing attention but you're a classic projector of your own desires and insecurities onto someone else, in this case me.
Just fess up, it'll make all this easier.
I also find it funny how you dismiss my writing then embark on a point by point rebuttal, if it was that ridiculous to you, you wouldn't even bother.
You're see-through, really, stop the pretence and be open and frank, rather than hiding behind such lies.
Clearly you feel that the US government should not offically apologise to the Native Americans, that is your opinion, my opinion is to the contrary. That is the end of it. It seems, based on the history of the attempts at legislation that it will happen some time in the next few years. It serves little purpose but it is an act of kindness and of recognising to a small degree a level of suffering in an American people.
Fine if you don't buy into that but don't make out you have a definitive take, it is just an opinion in such matters.
Oh and "And what can it really do other then to open up old divisions?" Hang on, I thoguht you said it was old news, no one around for it to matter to.
You're funny, seriously, what old wounds do you think it will open up? Nonsense man, pull yourself together.
"And where does it end?"
I don't know and quite frankly don't care, take it on a case by case basis and stop fretting about scenarios that won't happen and also happened far longer ago that the destruction of Native American society.
I also detect that you find saying sorry to be a waste of time, again, fair enough but many people, ie: those who have been historically a victim of such a crime, it isa gesture, no more no less but a worthy gesture. A politician mis-using it isn't the point, the point it you don't like saying sorry and I think, it's a good thing to be humble. You should try it.
"But why wasn't any country in Africa or Arabia apologising for their part in slavery too - after all the slave trade was only really possible because they facilitated it."
Oh dear, here we go, Africa is to blame for the slave trade and other such racist nonsense. People like you Sentinal, ie: racist, you take an element that has some truth in it and then blow it out of all proportion to make your own prejudiced point, thus obscuring the main culprits behind the act. Hitler spoke of this tactic often and it works well but not with me.
The same for your getting Native Americans to apologise for having slaves, one minute you're against apologies and the next you're all for it as long as it is Native Americans doing it. Make your mind up flip-flopper!
How about the US government leads the way and we can all file behind and say sorry? Bush got close in 03, maybe Obama will get closer, who knows.
Surely you're not going to be as stupid as to compare a personal apology between humans and a government apologising for past acts in retrospect it regrets? They are differnt things, stop melding them together to make your silly point.
Blair apologised as a representative of a nation's government that had a hand in some terrible acts, he did so in retrospect as a gesture of goodwill, it changes little but it has some worth as a act, more worth than saying nothing at all; you're far too hung up about this.
And I see why, you then throw in the classic racist nonsense of black people apologising for crime in London. Good grief, you're seriously bothered about skin colour and gene pool aren't you?
I'm not going to even give a racist statement like that creedence by arguing against it, only to say this, the worst crimes in the UK are carried out by white people, they commit more crime than any othe race in the UK, should they apologise you silly man? What kind of white people should say sorry, the ones in prison or all of us? What about Irish whites, or German Jewish whites like me, or what about whites with Scottish heritage?
Also, to be clear, you facts about who commits crime in the UK are so wring it hurts, you remind me of the US racists you say:
Blacks commit more crime, more balcks in prison than any other race=blacks are naturally criminal. Next you'll be telling me they are better at sports then whites...
Bad maths, racist maths, as we discussed in the South Africa thread, crime is a by product or economical factors. Take Russia for example, hardly any black people but plenty of crime and Poland is the same. People from poor backgrounds, living in poverty are more likely to commit certain types of crime.
Although to be clear, the crimes that cost our governments the most involve business fraud and they are carried out by rich, white, old men.
Oh and in response - tit for tat, I guess - to you latest personal comments, Daniel, everything about you screams pretentious muppet:
Now onto the personal attacks Sentinal. the double barrelled name comes from both my parents, it was their choice, the headshot is doing very well thanks, I'm not a socialist, I am an actor (my, you're a stalker, listening to my voice clips) with a 12 year professional career, come back to me when you know something of acting rather than being a racist and if by pathetic semantic style, you mean someone who has found you out, then yes, on that you're right.
"Make no mistake, I established in the previous thread that you are a liar and completely devoid of integrity"
Wrong again, you did know such thing, you do know this is a silly little argument on a blog don't you? You do know you don't know me at all? You're delusional as well.
You live in London Sentinal? Marvellous I'll email you!
Pagan:
Thankfully, neither you or Sentinal know owt about show business, so as I said some time back, professional opinion is what counts and I've never had so many auditions. Oh well.
You don't have to use the audition picture for your blog avatar, do you? The old one makes a better blog avatar, is all I'm saying, because it looks argumentative, like you're daring someone to argue with you. I just think its funny, that's all.
Also, Sentinel makes some good points. I think the problem here, the real hang-up, is the use of the word apology. An apology is meaningless. One cannot apologize for something he has not done or had no hand in. It's like telling a rape victim or one who has lost his entire family to murder that you understand how they feel? No you don't and can't possibly know how they feel unless of course you've been through something similar.
It would be better to just issue something along the lines of a formal recognition and acknowledgment of wrongs done in the past, and a determination to move past that toward a new day of inclusion and opportunity for all Americans (or whatever the country in each particular case might be).
That would be all right to an extent, but to add the word "apology" is just loaded with unwarranted implications. It's just inappropriate, especially to issue such apologies on behalf of the people you represent and who are innocent of anything. It's also pretentious.
I can have whatever I want for my profile pic, even Aryan inspired art. It's not a dare although some people seem to see it as that and are inspired to make threats on the Internet.
You and I differ, I'm not hung up about apologising, as long as you mean it, it serves a purpose. And as I said there is a BIG difference between a personal and governmental apology.
Sorry is a powerful word.
You really are a pompous shallow piece of work Daniel, churning out long contradictory and nonsensical detritus, all without base or evidence – a time thief as I have said. Again you try to drag a rational debate into the gutter. To summarise:
1) “You make me laugh, you expect your excuse to wash? etc blah blah blah
What are you on about you weird little mustachioed man?
2) “Clearly you feel that the US government should not offically apologise to the Native Americans, that is your opinion, my opinion is to the contrary. That is the end of it.”
No, you pompous little arse – actually I’ll decide when it’s the end of it for me.
Apologies for things that you have no control over and no responsibility for are absolutely meaningless. They are empty egotistical gestures devoid of any meaning in reality whatsoever.
I could apologise to people on this blog that you were ever born and especially in England, and although I would sincerely mean it, I have no control over it and therefore for me to even attempt it would be merely a grand egocentric statement. It would mean nothing to anyone.
3) “I also detect that you find saying sorry to be a waste of time…” etc blah blah blah
Again more painfully pretentious semantics - “I also detect” – adding to yet another nonsensical statement.
4) “Oh dear, here we go, Africa is to blame for the slave trade and other such racist nonsense”
Did I say Africa was responsible you conceited muppet?
Or did I say that the slave trade would not have been possible without the facilitation of the African and Arabian slavers who largely procured and traded Africans in the first place? Did I also say that if anyone was to apologize why should Britain – a country that abolished slavery before most others – and not everyone involved in slavery?
5) “People like you Sentinal, ie: racist, you take an element that has some truth in it and then blow it out of all proportion to make your own prejudiced point, thus obscuring the main culprits behind the act. Hitler spoke of this tactic often and it works well but not with me.”
More pompous detritus – in what way was it blown out of proportion? – and how could it have been in just one sentence in any case? – and what does Hitler have to do with any of it?
6) “The same for your getting Native Americans to apologise for having slaves, one minute you're against apologies and the next you're all for it as long as it is Native Americans doing it. Make your mind up flip-flopper!”
More baseless crap – again I clearly said that no one can apologize for it now – but if they are really going to start doing it, why must it just be whites when Indians owned African slaves too and Africans and Arabians facilitated the slave trade.
7) “Surely you're not going to be as stupid as to compare a personal apology between humans and a government…”
More crap – baseless argumentum ad hominem – where was that said exactly?
8) “Blair apologised as a representative of a nation's government that had a hand in some terrible acts, he did so in retrospect as a gesture of goodwill…”
Are you really saying that Blair’s government had a hand in slavery? If so you need a history lesson, if not you need an English lesson and you need to go back to understanding that apologies for things you have no control over are meaningless.
And Blair didn’t do it as “a gesture of goodwill” Blair did for the same reason he did (and does) everything: immense vanity and self promotion.
But seeing as you class Blair as a man of integrity, you might like to know that he fully agrees with me on the next point:
“Tony Blair yesterday claimed the spate of knife and gun murders in London was not being caused by poverty, but a distinctive black culture.
He said people had to drop their political correctness and recognise that the violence would not be stopped "by pretending it is not young black kids doing it".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/apr/12/ukcrime.race
Ready to admit you are wrong yet?
9) “And I see why, you then throw in the classic racist nonsense of black people apologising for crime in London. Good grief, you're seriously bothered about skin colour and gene pool aren't you?”
If it’s so classic then you will be able to provide a couple of examples surely?
And you cannot have it both ways – if you really think that white Britons should apologize to blacks for slavery then blacks can apologize to White Britons for their grossly disproportionate perpetration of crime in London and the UK.
10) “I'm not going to even give a racist statement like that creedence by arguing against it”
Yeah right - In reality you know you are onto a loser and cannot argue against it.
Given the facts that will follow, what you are saying is that to speak the truth is an act of racism. Like I have said, you are a fascist.
11) “only to say this, the worst crimes in the UK are carried out by white people, they commit more crime than any othe race in the UK”
Completely untrue and again, either you are so out of touch with reality that you have no business debating with adults are you are just a plain liar.
Blacks commit the worst crimes in the UK: Gun crime, Knife crime and gang rapes:
In the UK it was leaked that 73% of those charged with knife crime were non-white (whist whites made up the largest victim group) Over 70 per cent of London’s gun suspects were black, as were 50 per cent of the victims. In 80% of gang rape cases, the defendants were black. There are five times more young blacks in prison then whites.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1036833/Over-half-young-knife-suspects-black-Scotland-Yard-figures-reveal.html
http://www.itv.com/PressCentre/InTheLineOfFire/Ep1Wk07/default.html
http://www.newstatesman.com/199811200011
http://www.bbc.co.uk/1xtra/tx/black_crime.shtml
And it is not just in the UK that non-whites dominate crime either:
In Denmark non-whites committed 68% of all rapes, and it was revealed that non-whites were over-represented in all crime by an average of 46% and in Copenhagen 47.5% of prisoners on remand for serious crimes were non-white. In Norway it was found that two out of three charged with rape in Oslo were non-white, whilst in Sweden it as found that a rapist was four times more likely to have been born abroad – with Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia dominating the group of rape suspects and that non-whites were responsible for 25% of all crime in Sweden A survey in Australia found that in Melbourne magistrate’s courts, offenders from the horn of Africa and the Middle East were 20 times the representative proportion of their population…
http://www.cphpost.dk/news/1-latest-news/27877.html
http://www.cphpost.dk/news/1-latest-news/28210.html
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article190268.ece
http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article327666.ab
http://www.thelocal.se/2683/20051214/
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,21166482-661,00.html
As I said before I could go on and on with this with every ‘western’ country that has allowed significant third world immigration.
And just one more give away in the UK that blacks commit more violent crimes then anyone else is the fact that a special permanent police unit – euphemistically called an operation – exists. No such police unit exists for whites.
Operation Trident costs tens of millions of pounds each year, and has over 500 staff purely dedicated to BLACK gun crime.
Ready to admit you are wrong now?
12) “Bad maths, racist maths, as we discussed in the South Africa thread, crime is a by product or economical factors”
More crap – blacks and other immigrants have just as much access to social security as the rest of us and even have laws that discriminate against whites and in their favor for employment – at the very worst, the poorest black and non-white immigrant is as poor as the poorest white, and yet, as we see they commit the majority of the worst crimes, and far, far in disproportion to their numbers.
But out of interest, tell me how poverty can ever equate to gang rape?
13) “Now onto the personal attacks Sentinal”
The double barreled name is your choice – you are in your thirties!! The headshot is a very amusing village people recruitment poster – in what way is it “doing well?” You are not an actor, you are a bit part extra; you have linked to your extras CV and stalking is not really the action of one click – but again, you are just an insincere, hysterical muppet. The accents are truly appalling – I genuinely mean that – they are atrocious and defiantly exclude any possibility of any real acting work. That London accent is the worst attempt I have ever heard – seriously Dick Van Dyke’s is better – or do you REALLY think otherwise??!! And you’re semantic style is just plain ridiculous – a bizarre mix of pomp, hysteria and conceit.
14) “Wrong again, you did know such thing, you do know this is a silly little argument on a blog don't you? You do know you don't know me at all? You're delusional as well.”
The definition of liar is someone who does not tell the truth – I proved that about you, and I also proved that you have no integrity.
But again, amusingly, you think that any slight against you is outrageous – how very dare me – but think you have the God given right to dole them out to everyone else.
I don’t know you –thank God – but you do not know me. And whilst I have evidentially proved said flaws in your character you have only baselessly defamed me – and you are quite right, this is a “silly little argument on a blog” but you are still prepared to lie and show a lack of integrity – so God only knows how you conduct yourself in everyday life.
15) “You live in London Sentinal? Marvellous I'll email you!”
No you wont – I have no interest in hearing reams of your correctly anticipated prima donna “you threatened me” I’m a victim crap, like you have already posted gratuitously on my blog.
You haven’t been threatened at all, so stop acting like an hysterical little girl.
You were told that if you want to make defamatory personal comments about me (again, someone you don’t know) then don’t just bang them out on a keyboard at home - do it to my face. We are both in the same city so we can do that quite easily.
But I know your type very well - you are a blowhard, an internet hardman, full of talk and I am not interested in playing a protracted game of bullshit with you (that will most likely only lead to a police complaint) so I will just tell you where I will be for the next two Friday evenings while I finish a contract and you can come to me: Penderel's Oak, 283-287 High Holborn, Holborn, London, WC.
I will be in that pub after work from around 6 to closing this Friday and next and in the extremely unlikely event that I see you come through the door I will introduce myself to you.
13) “Thankfully, neither you or Sentinal know owt about show business”
Neither do you because you are not in it.
You are a bit parter and an extra. With truly awful accents.
16) “I've never had so many auditions”
Auditions are not work.
Sentinal that is long reply, if you've got this much to say tomorrow, we'll need to meet twice.
1) I'm talking about you, pretending to not understand is a device to avoid the issue at hand.
2) You don't like saying sorry to you? Poor chap.
3) Blah, blah, blah doesn't cut it Sentinal. Stop your flannel.
4) Now you flip-flop again.
5) It was a description of your approach to the issue at hand.
6) Glad to see you accept your flip-flop.
7) So you are being stupid, cool.
8) The Blair apologising thing has been dealth with, you don't like a white man saying sorry to non-whites.
9) You seriously think that non-white people and black people are more criminal don't you?
10) I've noticed you like to call a lot of peopel fascists. Why?
11) Wow, a lot of race hate there, how come?
12) I'm curious, what made you a racist?
13) I like the name my parents gave me, what's yours? Headshot getting me work thanks. Again you know nowt about acting, sorry love.
14) I've told the truth thanks.
15) See you tomorrow night dude!
13) Yes I am, talk about what you know about. Never down extras work.
16) No but all the acting work I do is. Cheers. I'll talk you through my CV step by step.
Well, here it is all out in the open: you don’t have a clue about what you saying.
Like I said all along you are just a shallow windbag devoid of any substance, honesty or integrity.
You have nothing to say here because you know that you are wrong and demonstrably so - about all of your contentions - and that I have provided more then ample evidence to prove that blacks are responsible for the majority of serious crime in London, the UK and also - along with other non-white immigrant – in large parts of Europe too, and in immense disproportion to their numbers.
Why? We need to know, that is for sure, it is of the utmost importance. How will address it? By accepting the facts and moving forward from there.
But all you can come up with is that these facts are race hate. Absurd. Pathetic. Fascist.
You cannot admit you are wrong – and how so very wrong – against all the evidence and have no argument whatsoever and so ask me inane questions like when I became a racist when it is in fact you that casually throws around grossly offensive racial insults that you could be arrested for using in the UK and convicted of racially aggravated harassment under Sections 28-32, 82 of the Crime & Disorder Act 1998, if you directed the racial insult to an individual.
I am not alone in recognizing this racist behavior – hate crime – of yours on your blog either; your host here, Renegade Eye, being another observer of your hateful duplicity.
You even have to lie about doing extras work when you clearly have and even admit to it on your blog “got to spit on a cripple in Emmerdale” – a liar needs a good memory Daniel.
And so in the final analysis Daniel, you have been thoroughly exposed as your true self: a liar, a lightweight debater, a man of no integrity, a man of no substance, and a casual racist.
As for the see you tomorrow dude crap – whilst I sincerely hope so I also sincerely doubt it too.
You seem to confuse your opinion with the truth, a dangeorus error, your opinion is all well and good but don't try and pitch it as the 'only way' or the truthful way, that makes you look pompous...again.Of course, philosophers certainly recognize the difference between opinion and truth, but we have been known to apply our dialectical techniques to opinion and have learned how to "discern" truth from opinion, inductively. So perhaps if I'm a bit pompous, it's because unlike you, I have "good" reason to be. For I have "right" opinion which leads to "the Good". I've actually been to Larissa.
Ta-ta sh*t for brains. ;-)
Sentinel:
Is that all you can say? It's a limited response; endless name calling.
All you do is go: you're wrong. And then call me names. I'm sure it makes you feel great but it does little to the matter at hand and makes me curious as to why you're so distressed.
I have plenty to say, as do you, unfortunately, for you, everything is a black persons fault, which is a wee bit odd considering how few black people we have in the UK. In fact, it's not just black people, non-whites in general and you expect the old racist antenna to not go off?
I wondered how long it would take for you to call me fascist, you did well on holding out so long, you're getting better clearly.
I can admit plenty when I'm wrong, you however, have a real low self-esteem and insecurity, reflected in your need to project your own self onto others, in this case me.
I can help you with this, having been trained as a counsellor.
I have never done extras work, the Emmerdale part was in it for 5 episodes, playing a gypsy believe it or not. Ha ha, how it all ties together in the end.
And so for the final analysis Barry, you are in need of some good help and perhaps a small break in the sun, you are delusional and angry but I can help you with both.
I look forward to 10 mins with you tomorrow before a longer outbreak of chat.
Cool.
FJ:
You seem to be suggesting that your opinions are in fact 'the truth' when clearly, they are not, it is your opinion. Why is it that you and Sentinel can't just have opinions but you must have something greater than that, a stranglehold on the truth? It smack of being a wee bit needy and an inflated sense of self worth.
Glad to see you're using name calling again duck.
You seem to be suggesting that your opinions are in fact 'the truth' when clearly, they are not, it is your opinion. Why is it that you and Sentinel can't just have opinions but you must have something greater than that, a stranglehold on the truth? It smack of being a wee bit needy and an inflated sense of self worth.Aw, you're jealous! How cute. I guess if I had sh*t for brains, I'd be jealous of the real thing, too.
Jealous?
FJ, you're not even reading what I wrote, just transposing your negativity onto it and calling me jealous.
You can't change your ways can you, no debate, just last wordism and name calling?
That's a shame.
So what's this bar you two are supposedly going to meet at? Excuse me, pub. Is it a skinhead place, a Goth hang-out, gay bar, etc.? Maybe just a typical London pub, or more like a large nightclub, perhaps?
If you two would put this meeting off for a couple of months, I would appreciate it. Sentinel, give me the name and address of the bar. I want to see this discussion, or engagement, or fight, or whatever it turns out to be.
Then again, maybe I don't. In retrospect, there is something somewhat discomfiting about two grown men who give each other little slaps over the internet and then make dates to meet at bars. Especially when one of them is a man who rages to the heavens when somebody even implies a dislike of homosexuals, and the other has as his avatar a young, lithe, muscular, bare-backed and blond haired young man.
Hi Pagan,
It's a pub on High Holborn, a regular pub part of the Weatherspoons chain. They do cheap ale.
And I had never had you down for a voyeur, you should let us know when you're in the UK and join us for a chat, I can't stay long tonight though, just going to show me face and then arrange another time to debate.
Homophobia does make me cross but I find it odd you find someone disliking prejudice akin to homosexuality.
Good spot though on the Aryan imagery in Sentinel's pic.
It's not that you dislike it, its that you seem to fly into such a rage over it. That's all right, though, you're a man of passionate beliefs, obviously, nothing wrong with that, or for that matter even if you are gay, which I know in all honesty you are not. I saw the latest pictures of your fiancee, her beauty should put any such questions to rest.
Anyway, about the ranting, at one time I used to carry on the same way about that and other matters, to tell you the truth. I guess I'm getting older, or more conservative, or both. Now I just bitch about the government getting too powerful, and I guess people listen to that about as much as they ever listened to what I ever ranted about.
I would like to come to the UK sometimes, so who knows? I always wanted to do a tour of the place, also Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. Of course if I visited every place I would like to see I would have to clone myself several times. I would have to be able to stay at least a couple of weeks in a place before I could even begin to get the gist of it, preferably a month.
I'm just not a fan of bigotry, that's all.
I have noticed that your own tine and apporach has been very different, better so to speak, for some time, we disgaree but we don't call each other names and get in a rage.
We outline our thoughts, sometimes share points and then move on.
I'm trying this approach with FJ but he is dead-set against me, entrenched in his personal feelings.
You should come to the UK for a break, it's a nic eplace with much to see and do and perhaps a journey to your Irish roots?
Again Daniel, you have absolutely no substance or integrity: I have proved that blacks DO commit the MAJORITY of serious crimes in London and the UK and that it is in massive DISPROPORTION to their numbers:
In the UK it was leaked that 73% of those charged with knife crime were non-white (whist whites made up the largest victim group) Over 70 per cent of London's gun suspects were black, as were 50 per cent of the victims white. In 80% of gang rape cases, the defendants were black. There are five times more young blacks in prison then whites.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1036833/Over-half-young-knife-suspects-black-Scotland-Yard-figures-reveal.html
http://www.itv.com/PressCentre/InTheLineOfFire/Ep1Wk07/default.html
http://www.newstatesman.com/199811200011
http://www.bbc.co.uk/1xtra/tx/black_crime.shtml
This is credible evidence. You are wrong.
And so you tell me that it is race hate to say it: the truth equates to a hate crime in your book!! That is the sentiments of a fascist.
Even the most PC PM we have ever seen, and one that you think has integrity had this to say because of the massive impact of these crimes:
“Tony Blair yesterday claimed the spate of knife and gun murders in London was not being caused by poverty, but a distinctive black culture.
He said people had to drop their political correctness and recognise that the violence would not be stopped "by pretending it is not young black kids doing it".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/apr/12/ukcrime.race
You are wrong - pure and simple.
It is the truth that you have an issue with, if you don't like certain facts that you think you can use fascistic and Orwellian labels to suppress these facts and / or frighten the messenger into silence.
If you really do not believe these facts then PROVE WHY, don't just make bold statements and use labels.
I challenge you, for once, just once, to use EVIDENCE to back up you're contentions in the same way that I use evidence to back up mine.
And this is on you're racist nature:
Renegade eye doesn't provide an 'explanation' - he links to a wiki article that says exactly what I, common sense and the law do on this matter:
"Pikey is a pejorative slang term used, mainly in England and Ireland, to refer to travellers, Gypsies..."
It goes into detail about the various offensive racial usage's of the word, giving several examples but nowhere does it back your contention that it is common usage for 'cheap' - thats because you know damn well what it really means and use it the way a causal racist does.
Do you think that because you have not directed the word at an individual it is any less offensive (and you are only a technicality away from breaking the law on racially aggravated harassment?)
If, for example, I had said I don't like the Ritz because their meal portions are "kikey" do you think that would be any less offensive to Jews? Or that would acceptable?
Of course not, it would reveal an underlying racist character of the worst kind- the casual racist.
You are very quick to throw the label racist around to people you know nothing about but you cannot accept that your language equates to racism, and as I said, and you are only a technicality away from breaking the law on racially aggravated harassment.
You need to face up to the fact that not only are you a casual racist, but you a hypocrite too.
Pagan Temple,
There is no meeting per se, and certainly no 'date' - I have just informed this pretentious muppet where I will be tonight and next week because we are in the same city and so the usual internet hardman taunts don't have be just the usual cowardly keyboard type.
But my avatar is actually a depiction - or more accurately a realistic representation - of myself, and I choose it for that very reason and also because it was looking away, and I liked it symbolising my choice of anonymity too.
But it is the third time Daniel has decided to label it 'Aryan' art - purely because the subject is blond - casually using Nazi terms in the way that he causally use racist ones.
Is everyone that is blond, and blond and blue-eyed an 'Aryan' object Daniel? Is it really a racial statement to be blond or it just a genetic fact?
Jealous?
FJ, you're not even reading what I wrote, just transposing your negativity onto it and calling me jealous.
You can't change your ways can you, no debate, just last wordism and name calling?
That's a shame.Really? Here's what you wrote.
FJ:
You seem to be suggesting that your opinions are in fact 'the truth' when clearly, they are not, it is your opinion. Why is it that you and Sentinel can't just have opinions but you must have something greater than that, a stranglehold on the truth? It smack of being a wee bit needy and an inflated sense of self worth.
Glad to see you're using name calling again duck.LOL! Look in the mirror at what passes for "debate", through your own eyes, sh*t 4 brains.
And of course Daniel, as predicted, you weren't in that bar - not that I give a shit and it was fully expected - but you know it and I know.
And again, as fully expected you are now also claiming that you were. You are a very strange little man, and a very much just an Internet blowhard.
But at the very least, you could attempt to bash that keyboard with some real answers to those questions, backed up with some real evidence.
Or why even bother bashing those keys at all?
I'm just not a fan of bigotry, that's all.LOL! Just "not your kind" of bigotry. You're a 'naive' bigot of the worst sort, Daniel. One so deeply bigoted, he's oblivious to it.
And sentinel, you have proven all of your points. Daniel has only proven himself a pompous, self-righteous ass.
Sentinal:
This will be my last comment here.
I arrived at the pub at 17:45 and I left at 18:14 as I said I would, to go and meet my partner.
I waited for you to show, you did not. I honestly expected you to turn up but you didn't, I thought you were man of principle, I thought that even if you held views different to mine, views I hated and vica versa, you were a person of conviction to turn up and discuss them.
You are not.
You are a coward.
You are delusional.
You are a liar.
How can you reconcile the lie that you were there when you were not? How can you tell me I wasn't there when I sat there and sipped a lime and soda.
You refuse to exchange emails, you refuse to make your face known to me, you then lie about my whereabouts.
You do not deserve my time, you do not deserve any respect and I will not waste any more effort on you.
Okay, here's the problem with this whole scenario. I don't know or don't care who showed up and who didn't, it's impossible to know one way or another except the two of you. Obviously one of you didn't show up. Maybe neither one of you did. Maybe both of you did and kept your eyes strategically focused on the floor or ceiling. It doesn't matter.
What does matter is the whole plan was flawed and based on a flawed principle. You do not go to a bar to meet strangers to discuss "views".
If you are going to meet, resolve to meet to get to know each other on a personal level. Forget the nonsense about views, issues, and politics for the time being. Get to know each other as fellow Brits, as human beings, or whatever.
A person should not be defined, and certainly should not define himself, by his "views". Views are transitory and can change or adapt to circumstances. Or that is how it should be. A person who defines himself by his views is limiting himself.
Let me give you an example of what I mean. Take Renegade Eye. What is he and what does he believe. There are two ways to look at it.
1. Renegade Eye is a socialist.
2. Renegade Eye is a man whose political views are socialist in nature.
Do you see the distinction? There is a very big difference, however subtle it might appear on the surface.
In other words, you are not your "views", they are just a part of you. If there is not more to you than that-hopefully a hell of a lot more-you are doomed to wander in a fog of self-delusion.
Well Daniel, someone else put it best on the last thread:
“You're so full of SH*T, it's dribbling out your mouth. Grow the f*ck up!”
You were not there at all. You know, and I know it. And of course, you know that it couldn’t be proved either way too.
And let’s make this clear – I did not offer to meet you for a discussion, I told you where I would be I so that you could repeat the choicest comments to my face; as soon as I did though I realized the folly of it. Idiots like you never say things to people’s faces.
No, I only gave you the opportunity to play this stupid little game, and the opportunity to avoid having to admit that you have been wrong about everything I have challenged you on.
It would hardly take a genius to figure that you are just as dishonest about this as you are with everything else:
“I thought you were man of principle, I thought that even if you held views different to mine, views I hated and vica versa, you were a person of conviction”
What a crock of shit – you have grossly insulted me all through the threads (which led to me telling you where I would be in the first place) you have used pretty much every pejorative term you could think of in describing and denigrating me, but now people are supposed to believe that - in you’re pathetically cringe worthy attempt to cloak yourself in mock equity and innocence - you really thought I was “a man of principle and conviction” after all, but now, tragically you have found I am not.
You are so full of sh*t.
And like I have said all along, you are a liar with no integrity and a bigoted, lightweight debater with no substance.
You have been thoroughly proved wrong throughout this thread – and the last – and also revealed as a causal racist too – and now you feign some sort of moral high ground to get away from addressing it.
No wonder why you were so glad at my honest but – with hindsight - foolish gesture.
You know you've won when Last Word Danny makes his, "this will be my last comment" post. WTG, Sentinel.
My God, I wish someone had warned me about this Daniel Hoffmann-Gill character - what a weird and obsessive crackpot he is, its like he is on a massive online abuse spree looking for real trouble.
http://truthatsentinel.blogspot.com/2009/05/another-debate-another-muppet.html
Sorry, but until you've experienced DLS* for yourself, you'd not believe it possible.
*Deranged Leftist Syndrome
Post a Comment