| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - May 15 2005 : 10:39:40 AM
This is a continuation from Springfield Cartridge, page 21. How we arrived here is anyone's guess.....
"You cannot attend peace conferences and proclaim peace and justice and at the same time indulge in a war of terror on a people who by a vast majority had sought freedom and independence." But they weren't fighting for freedom and independence. They were fighting for a free hand to exact the petty revenges upon each other they had for centuries under the guise of freedom and independence. Further, once independent, the liberal Irish Church, famous for tolerance, was elevated into social prominence.
"We did not have to defeat them. (You do if you want to claim you beat them) We just made the country ungovernable. (It was always ungovernable, and the petty wars between the Irish made conquest so easy. Akin to saying we stamp our feet and they can't make us eat) Militarily we wiped out their secret service, shot their police in the back and destroyed their administrative center." (Wow. The doors of Vahalla swing open....don't forget bombs in subways and the heroic murder of Montbatten....and of course, knee capping women and men who bought their drugs elsewhere.)
"You may be a little mixed up here.It was Churchill who threatened what you described as immolation if a treaty was not accepted.It was the British army who threatened to mutiny if the North was included in any settlement." Again, you move the baseline. The threats went back to the 19th century, and came from the Irish if they weren't granted their freedom by Gladstone. The majority of the North did not want the British Army to leave, being Protestant.
"You state that Britian just wanted to be rid of us. Well Britian is a composite containing various groups and interests.The military for example did not want to be rid of us.We commanded the Western approaches and our ports were of strategic significance to the navy." The only important group was the voting public paying for the money hole that was Ireland.
"The aristocracy who owned us lock stock and barrel did not want to be rid of us.The planted loyalists did not want to break with the motherland and face life under a papist government and we were a source of cheap food and manpower for the empire." I know, you poor things. When you were granted independence, and those landowners were removed from power, the standard of living must have skyrocketed, huh.
"Besides all that the World saw Ireland as part of the UK." This is all supposition. The UK is Scotland, Wales, and England. Ireland wasn't part of it except as part of Britain.
"To yourselves as an nation.The leader of the free world.Could never face up to the betrayal at Yalta.Thus the fluffing and patting." What are you talking about? The Soviets were defeated without a war.
"It was an indication of the capitulation mindset of Roosevelt and Churchill.Hundreds of thousands could have been saved from Stalin's death camps but not even this did our heros deny him." How? By a war killing hundreds of thousands more to no end? Churchill and FDR had "capitulation mindsets"? Bogus.
"Me granny could have taken it before her breakfast. This invasion of Japan is another great myth.Japan was dead in the water.There was never any need to have nuked it." No, that's left wing myth. Japan was primed to the bit. The Japanese said so, say so, everyone with first hand knowledge says so. Only people who couldn't imagine facing up to what Japan faced - America, most of Europe - say they would have surrendered without the bomb because that's what we would have done. They really did believe that midget with the effeminate voice was a God. Not in a secular way, either.
"The Tsar was an emperior who was butchered by Stalin's mates, so the lands conquered by the Tsars pass to....no I haven't time for this." Because you lose. Stalin's mates cheerfully accepted all the Romanov lands as theirs as well, and said so.
"Well for 50 years and two gererations it worked out for the worst." The Cold War was nothing compared to the blood bath you advocate. But war and violence diverts attention, doesn't it.
"I can only ask you to back that up with some facts or a few examples or something because it is just too stupid to reply to in its present form." Sure, Wild. Your young people hang themselves at a rate commensurate with the alcoholism and drug addictions, about twice as many as elsewhere. Whereas most suicides are by the elderly and ill, in Ireland they're by the young and depressed. When you guys provide a society where suicides among the young aren't skyrocketing, and it was up like 50% between 1985 and 1996 and still going, we'll talk. This is the third or fourth time I've mentioned this as an example of a society that is failing or failed.
http://www.a1b2c3.com/suilodge/figuk1.htm
The suicide rates are comparable to those among Native Americans, and for much the same reasons. Alcohol, drugs, depression. Coincidence, or are there unifying factors that might be looked upon?
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/natam.htm
A few, maybe. Both societies (and this is risky, because NA societies are widely diverse, but....)feature extensive and false mythologies about past greatness, predominently military, and often at the expense of impressive accomplishments that involved women and civilized society. Much of it is balderdash.
Their 'fall' is blamed upon the conquering society currently all around it, who is posited to have betrayed, lied, stolen, but never conquered, all evidence to the contrary. To succeed in the new society, cutting heavy rope to the memory and lives of ancestors is necessary. There are those in both societies whose prestige and wealth are dependent upon those ropes. Neither society, despite all evidence, admits to itself it was conquered, beaten, because that underlines the lies and fabrications of the military societies, official and not, who have now turned to organized crime in large measure to buck up their prestige.
And when I see that depressing scenario gaining traction here - with bogus military mythology and all - it's worth fighting.
What Wild is doing is stapling his wrist to his forehead and bemoan the failures of Britain and the US. But he fails to mention that coincident or not, the war was won, his way would have killed far more, and it diverts attention away from how Ireland is doing when it has nobody to blame. Britain and the US, right and wrong, have a history of putting cash and lives where their mouths are. Ireland talks a good game, it just never seems to provide, to protect, to prosper on its own. |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - December 19 2005 : 3:16:37 PM
Wild
Both actually it is interesting to watch you and DC discuss differernt topics. I am impressed. |
| wILD I |
Posted - December 19 2005 : 2:29:09 PM
AZ
Quality or quantity? |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - December 18 2005 : 8:19:17 PM
Now I know why you both are Generals. |
| wILD I |
Posted - July 25 2005 : 1:02:06 PM
You claimed the Irish as Celts,
Well whatever about the Irish they say Dubliners are descended from Cromwellian troopers and prostitutes.Hardy stock yeh?
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - July 23 2005 : 8:56:11 PM
You claimed the Irish as Celts, did you not? Do you not? They are not, according to this. I don't necessarily buy it, but then I said I don't think the term Celt means anything, anyway. Sorta pulls the rug out from all those folks marketing Celtic music, by which they mean Irish, Scot, Manx, or Welch, and it turns out none of us are. So much for our Celtic heritage. Insofar as any of this stuff means anything. |
| wILD I |
Posted - July 23 2005 : 2:03:35 PM
Oh do wake up DC.I posted substantially the same information On June 6th last.
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - July 23 2005 : 11:32:13 AM
From the National Geographic. About Britain, not Ireland. Still....
One such change is the emergence of a Celtic identity in Britain. There are no historical references to Celts in ancient Britain.
Miles explained that "Celts" was a name applied to tribes in Gaul—modern-day France—though their language shared the same root as those spoken by British tribes.
"In the 18th and 19th centuries, as Ireland, Wales, and Scotland started to assert national identity, they began to talk about themselves as Celts," Miles added.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0719_050719_britishgene_2.html |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - June 11 2005 : 11:19:19 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
So is it fair to make up verses to the Irish National Anthem and post them? Unofficial, of course. "Inbred drunks and your always willing Mooooooooother. As dumb as your Uncle but then he's your faaaaaaaaaather....." See? Just in fun and like your posting, both meaningful and not "mean spirited" because, like you, I'm Celt (whatever that is) and so invulnerable to the charge. And if anyone gets angry, I can just mewl about how I was joking. If they get really angry don't forget the English conquered us. So there. I'm a victim and can libel anyone four hundred years after a not terribly relevant fact because.....um, well, here's a joke. Which is the shorter book: Arab Suicide Bombers Over Twenty or Wars the Irish Won?
What fun.........Of course, I have nothing but the highest respect for.........those genocidal thugs. Why don't you believe me????
I will not dignify the above statements with an attempt to rationalize them. Jokes that demean a people are never really humorous. But, I have to ask, what was the point? |
| wILD I |
Posted - June 09 2005 : 08:27:54 AM
The harsh facts, Wild, is that the leading killer of young men in Ireland is suicide.
I have not checked it but I would not dispute it. In a peaceful state with a healthy young population there are relatively few killers of young men other than suicide.
Most kids in the US have cars and drive, and motorvehicle accidents are correspondingly high but low for miles driven. This is rather like saying the number of deaths in the US due to fire arms is low in comparison to the number of rounds fired.Meaningless stats.
Is there some point to all this?In one short paragraph you mention HIV,slums,drugs,Black violence.Are you saying that this troubled society is somehow less dsyfunctional than society here?
Today's special in mantras is
This is why my mantra of applying the same standards the same way is the only way to judge an issue, whether LBH officers or European civilization. Or Ireland.
We had a special yesterday [You can't blame or even judge people out of their times.]but it was an embarrassment so it has been withdrawn and replaced with the new improved version above.
You want to trot out the charge of genocide for "mere" mass murder, your obligation to prove it. It requires intent by ruling body, and it did not exist here,
It was the policy of the united States to bring about the destruction of the Indian's way of life by forceable removal and imprisonment in concentration camps.Which is genocide, meaning an assault with the express purpose of destroying an nation as such.[this has been discussed ad nauseam]
"Inbred drunks and your always willing Mooooooooother. As dumb as your Uncle but then he's your faaaaaaaaaather....."
Let's try to keep this adult DC .
I'm a victim and can libel anyone four hundred years
Libel---the publication of something false.The Narragansetts like the Aborigines of Tasmania were attacked by settlers of the British Empire and ceased to exist with the possible exception of one or two now resident with the ghost of you know who in Gracelands. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - June 08 2005 : 3:33:36 PM
The harsh facts, Wild, is that the leading killer of young men in Ireland is suicide. No need to wait, I've said it several times. Your government says so. Of course, you can't address it till you accumulate iffy statistics without url or reference to say that others are just as bad as Ireland if not worse (the Irish are VICTIMS!!!!). I posted my references, you don't. But, of course, they aren't just as bad as Ireland. And the curve is angling up.
Most kids in the US have cars and drive, and motorvehicle accidents are correspondingly high but low for miles driven. Your population isn't any younger than ours and doesn't, relatively speaking, drive at all, atthough that may have changed since I was there.
Actually, it's HIV that's the number one killer of our young at present, murder is mostly in urban slums having to do with drugs and mostly black on black. The leading cause of death for a young black man is another young black man. From the suicide stats, subtract out the number with terminal illness. You can do the same in Ireland, but it makes small difference. It's depression in Ireland. Not impending death as it is here. Scotland has a high suicide rate, but it's apparenlty the elderly and ill doing it their way when the time comes.
All murder is callous, Wild. How could it not be? All the thousands of admitted knee-cappings - who knows how many don't talk for fear? - the murders of family witnesses, the murders of informants to mere drug deals excused under the guise of Patriotism to Eire, all callous.
One in four troopers at the LBH were not Irish, but with few exceptions Americans of Irish stock. There's a difference.
And in the statistic happy US, every crime, event and domestic disturbance is tallied. I know damned well domestic disturbances and even public fist fights aren't tallied in Ireland or most of the world given to calling us "violent" even when authorities are present. Different attitude to it. So while we have heavy crime statistics, that doesn't mean we have worse crime than elsewhere, or that we're more violent. This is why my mantra of applying the same standards the same way is the only way to judge an issue, whether LBH officers or European civilization. Or Ireland.
You want to trot out the charge of genocide for "mere" mass murder, your obligation to prove it. It requires intent by ruling body, and it did not exist here, wasn't attempted, and would not have been tolerated.
So is it fair to make up verses to the Irish National Anthem and post them? Unofficial, of course. "Inbred drunks and your always willing Mooooooooother. As dumb as your Uncle but then he's your faaaaaaaaaather....." See? Just in fun and like your posting, both meaningful and not "mean spirited" because, like you, I'm Celt (whatever that is) and so invulnerable to the charge. And if anyone gets angry, I can just mewl about how I was joking. If they get really angry don't forget the English conquered us. So there. I'm a victim and can libel anyone four hundred years after a not terribly relevant fact because.....um, well, here's a joke. Which is the shorter book: Arab Suicide Bombers Over Twenty or Wars the Irish Won?
What fun.........Of course, I have nothing but the highest respect for.........those genocidal thugs. Why don't you believe me???? |
| wILD I |
Posted - June 08 2005 : 11:09:23 AM
To refute Mr Miles then
Interesting site Dave but hardly definitive.I mean it says that between 50% and 100% of the Celts were wiped out.Now that's a huge margin of error.Nor does it help DC's position because in this case it's his beloved Anglo Saxon's who are doing the ethnic cleansing.
So there has to be some quantitative basis for calling it genocide
If a group of people who had the potential of nationhood was wiped out I would consider that genocide.
Thats a little like me claiming that every stupid or callous act committed by the IRA or in the old days by Sinn Fein is representative of the Irish population - which is clearly both false and blatantly unfair.
But you see Dave callous acts were the norm for the British Empire.
Here is a verse from the British Empire's anthem.[unoffical]
Tell the wretched natives,sinful are their hearts,
Turn their heathen temples into spirit marts,
And if to your teaching they will not succumb,
Give them another sermon with the Maxim gun.
Proves nothing just gives a flavour of empire building.
In a discussion such as this it is necessary to distinguish between the individual and the organisation.In having a go at the British Empire I'm fully aware that the Empire was directed by the English,administered by the Scots at the point of Irish bayonets.1 in 4 troopers at the LBH were Irish.So no I'm not claiming that genocide is representive of the English,the Aussies,the Irish or the Yanks etc what I'm claiming is that the British Empire incorporated along with Uncle Sam incorporated was on occasion guilty of genocide.
And callous acts committed by the Irish?In 1922 the Irish government in order to stamp out assassinations of its ministers took 77 rebel prisoners out and shot them.And that was callous murder. |
| dave |
Posted - June 07 2005 : 12:51:53 PM
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
Hi Dave
I beg to disagree. I believe that you will find that the DNA of the inhabitants of the UK east of Offa's dyke is strongly Anglo-Saxon in nature, while to the west it is strongly Celtic.
I'm sure your are correct I would be very surprised if that was not the case ,these boys were not exactly celibate. However the new blood according to David Miles did not significantly diminish that of the original inhabitants.
To refute Mr Miles then
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/2076470.stm
quote:
but the Tasmanian aboriginals were a small population group. My point being that the term genocide may be correct in that it was the extinction of a particular ethnic group, but in terms of actual numbers, the term genocide is slightly misleading.
Not misleading if you were an Aboriginal.It was 100% of them and really to offer the size of the population as somehow mitigating the outrage is not cricket.
Well I can't change your opinion, but to explain my position. If a family was murdered who were the last to have a certain dialect or practise a certain set of customs, would you consider that genocide? Probably not. What about a small group of families? You probably still wouldn't call it genocide. So there has to be some quantitative basis for calling it genocide, otherwise we would call the destruction of every single tiny tribe genocide.
I don't care to sound cold blooded, but dispassionately thats how I see it.
quote:
No, clearly not. It was an initiative launched by the local settlers, and as such was not reflective of the British Empire in general.
The British Empire was built on the initiative of "locals".If it claims t the land then it can claim the warts.
Thats a little like me claiming that every stupid or callous act committed by the IRA or in the old days by Sinn Fein is representative of the Irish population - which is clearly both false and blatantly unfair. |
| wILD I |
Posted - June 07 2005 : 12:47:34 PM
DC
I still await your "harsh facts" you offer me nothing and avoid my question.
So just to keep the pot on the boil.
And again, do you feel any responsibility for the suicide epidemic you refuse to address?
The latest ratings would put Ireland in 5 position in Europe for youth suicide and 17 overall.
In the US the biggest killer of youngmen is homicide,auto accident and suicide in that order.So whereas we have one epidemic you have three.And how many of those auto accidents are really suicides?In dealing with the situation in Ireland have you factored in that we have one of the youngest populations in Europe.
Suicide among young men is a social problem in all modern countries but to you it is only a problem if you are top of the league.You have a fascination for numbers.No genocide because one Narragansett was found in a McDonalds,No famine unless numbers are accurately calculated and now suicide is only a problem if a country is top of the numbers league.
It's crap, as you know, so either admit you fabricated it or prove it. You're used to being able to make up or wildly exaggerate these great stories and get away with it.
All will be made clear when you recognise the conflicting views you have posted. |
| wILD I |
Posted - June 07 2005 : 12:22:34 PM
Hi Dave
I beg to disagree. I believe that you will find that the DNA of the inhabitants of the UK east of Offa's dyke is strongly Anglo-Saxon in nature, while to the west it is strongly Celtic.
I'm sure your are correct I would be very surprised if that was not the case ,these boys were not exactly celibate. However the new blood according to David Miles did not significantly diminish that of the original inhabitants.
but the Tasmanian aboriginals were a small population group. My point being that the term genocide may be correct in that it was the extinction of a particular ethnic group, but in terms of actual numbers, the term genocide is slightly misleading.
Not misleading if you were an Aboriginal.It was 100% of them and really to offer the size of the population as somehow mitigating the outrage is not cricket.
No, clearly not. It was an initiative launched by the local settlers, and as such was not reflective of the British Empire in general.
The British Empire was built on the initiative of "locals".If it claims t the land then it can claim the warts.
Anthony Trollope vistitng Tasmania a short time after the last of the Aboriginals had been killed off inquired of a magistrate what he would recommend if he killed a blackman.Should he go to the nearest police station or rejoice as though he had killed a deadly snake.The magistrate replyed that only a fool would say anything about it.And that was reflective of the local Empire in general.
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - June 07 2005 : 11:51:30 AM
There's no particular reason anyone should recall this, but my contention from the very beginning is that if you establish a fairly enforced code of behavior for the 7th cavalry at LBH and apply in fairly to all three of the top officers, Custer loses every time. Only by establishing arbitrary and different criteria as the battle progressed can Custer be seen as a victim or betrayed or any of that malarkey.
Wild doesn't want the Irish and British/English judged by the same standards, because even if both have clearly acted as thugs and pillagers, the Irish have no offsetting criteria that keeps them in the positive column as the English do. He will therefore, in example, declare that the Poles in Britain during WWII, with no evidence, represented Poland and utterly disregard the other larger elements: Britain must be seen as a chronic betrayer because that's his template for Ireland's failures. Rather than the petty, violent Irish themselves.
He latches on to genocide and takes great pride in pointing out the mass murders of the Americans and British - they did, no doubt- but refuses to acknowledge the forces that prevented genocide. They don't reflect well on his mythical Ireland, so he denies them or belittles them. He needs an England totally evil and dedicated to the destruction of Ireland. That Ireland isn't important, really, doesn't occur to him.
And he refuses to substantiate his claims, easy enough to blow away. Again, Wild: you claimed the Irish were the backbone of education in Africa. For the fourth time, tell us what this is based upon. It's crap, as you know, so either admit you fabricated it or prove it. You're used to being able to make up or wildly exaggerate these great stories and get away with it.
Also, what responsibility does Ireland take for its own incompetencies and history?
And again, do you feel any responsibility for the suicide epidemic you refuse to address? |
| dave |
Posted - June 07 2005 : 10:20:53 AM
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
We were promised harsh facts and what do we get?The same old tired rhetoric.
Here are some harsh facts.The latest research by David Miles a leading archeogenetists show that the sucsessive waves of invasions of the British Isles by Celts,Anglo Saxons,Vikings,Normans had minimal impact on the existing gene pool.His research is based on DNA studies.The impact of these invasions was largely cultural and Linguistic.
I beg to disagree. I believe that you will find that the DNA of the inhabitants of the UK east of Offa's dyke is strongly Anglo-Saxon in nature, while to the west it is strongly Celtic.
quote:
But since you do to the British amid outright lies,
Lies DC?A fellow Scot of yours,a leading British historian has this to say--In one of the most shocking of all chapters in the history of the British Empire, the Aborigines in Van Dieman's Land were hunted down ,confined,and ultimately exterminated:an event which truly merits the now overused term genocide.He goes on to point out that had Australia been an independent republic like the US the genocide might have been on a continental scale.[Empire.How Britian made the modern world]
Wild, I don't wish to try and justify the injustices of the past, but the Tasmanian aboriginals were a small population group. I have no idea of what the aboriginal population of Tasmania was before white settlement, but a rough guess would be not much more than a good sized European town. My point being that the term genocide may be correct in that it was the extinction of a particular ethnic group, but in terms of actual numbers, the term genocide is slightly misleading.
Having said that, it was perhaps the lowest point of Australian history.
If Australia had been a republic, then I think that the treatment of aboriginals may have been worse, but only by a matter of small degree's. There was never any need for genocide in Australia, the population density, particularly in the west and centre was just too low. In the late 19th century British migration to Australia was strongly encouraged as Australia was seen essentially as an empty land (as in empty of population).
quote:
If you wish me to address the other points in your post then answer this.Was the British Empire guilty of genocide in Van Dieman's Land?
No, clearly not. It was an initiative launched by the local settlers, and as such was not reflective of the British Empire in general. |
| wILD I |
Posted - June 06 2005 : 2:28:10 PM
We were promised harsh facts and what do we get?The same old tired rhetoric.
Here are some harsh facts.The latest research by David Miles a leading archeogenetists show that the sucsessive waves of invasions of the British Isles by Celts,Anglo Saxons,Vikings,Normans had minimal impact on the existing gene pool.His research is based on DNA studies.The impact of these invasions was largely cultural and Linguistic.
But since you do to the British amid outright lies,
Lies DC?A fellow Scot of yours,a leading British historian has this to say--In one of the most shocking of all chapters in the history of the British Empire, the Aborigines in Van Dieman's Land were hunted down ,confined,and ultimately exterminated:an event which truly merits the now overused term genocide.He goes on to point out that had Australia been an independent republic like the US the genocide might have been on a continental scale.[Empire.How Britian made the modern world]
I'm not two-faced. I don't believe you can judge people out of their time.
Perhaps another recognition scene with DC in the leading role as Punctious Pilot.I have come not to judge the Celts but to scourge them.How cowardly can you get?
Joyce chose to excel in the better language,
Joyce did no such thing.How could he have written Ulysses in anything other than Dublinese.[and just in case you don't know what Dublinese is.Take the Queen's English and marinate it in Gaelic and the let it mature in the slums and tenements of Dublin and you just might get some idea]
and no, Wild, languages are not equal.
No doubt you will inform us of what objective means you have devised to quantify the merits of various languages.Would English have been better in the outback?I say Bluey old chap been on walk about then,bugger any joeys?I'm sure the board will wait with bated breath while you go on to explain how many angels fit on the point of a needle.
If you wish me to address the other points in your post then answer this.Was the British Empire guilty of genocide in Van Dieman's Land?
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - June 06 2005 : 12:02:51 PM
1. It was genocide by the Celts by your own preferred definition. They killed off all the previous inhabitants, who aren't represented by DNA elsewhere since the invasion. Science, you know. It's tough after you've hurled the accusation around to discover you're guilty of it, and the ones you've accused clearly are not. Hypocrisy, Wild. Grotesque, canting hypocrisy.
2. I never said nor implied "all there is" was sound and word play to Ulysses or Joyce. Pretty desperate, Wild. Also, whiny. Typical. On the upside, glad you now seem to admit the remark was correct and not just applicable to FW. If you'd actually read Ulysses, you woundn't have made that assertion in the first place.
3. I'm not two-faced. I don't believe you can judge people out of their time. But you do, applying all sorts of modern accusations against the British who routinely hammered Ireland. So, when in Rome - or rather Ireland - do as the Irish do: accuse and blame. That I have evidence for my charges of genocide - and you don't - is merely coincidental.
If the Anglos are guilty of genocide as you contend, the Celts/Irish are more so. But, as you suggest, saying it doesn't make it true. So let's see. The Irish killed off the previous inhabitants because they were there to the invasion and now they're gone and not reflected in the dna of modern men. We didn't kill off the Indians, who are still here. Who's guilty of genocide, hmmmmmm? And those poor, poor Celts FORCED to invade and COMPELLED to kill..... That's enough to gag a maggot, Wild.
Mean spirited? Go read you blustering balderdash about the English throughout this message board. You're so used to getting away with these over-the-top accusations - nuke Moscow or Kiev, the Cold War being the "worst possible" thing, selling out the (one group of)Poles, genocide of Indians somehow still annoyingly present, etc. Okay to accuse the US and England of all sorts of horrors, excused by the parenthetical "I have nothing but respect...." But suggest the Irish are mostly to blame for their own problems, failures, and history is "mean spirited."
Again:
Proof for the Irish being the "backbone" of education in the entire continent of Africa is what? Or do you admit it was an utter fabrication not even excused by hyperbole?
What responsibility do you grant the Irish for its own history? Or is everything England's fault? Poor, poor Ireland.
How do you explain the suicide rate of your young? You never acknowledge it. |
| wILD I |
Posted - June 04 2005 : 12:50:08 PM
But I do, Wild. I do. It's the one that killed off Ireland's aborigines. And we cannot blame or judge people out of our times.Tell us again about the genocide inflicted by the Celts on the original peoples?
The application of the word genocideto an assumption that the earlier inhabitants had been killed off is a judgement.It is a judgement because the crime is [as you have repeatedly said]of a well defined particular nature.Yet in making this judgement you fail to say when the crime was committed,where it was committed,was it by one tribe of invading celts or was it a cocordinated effort by many tribes,there's no mention of what period of time it took,who were the victims,were there more than one defined group of victims where are the mass graves?In fact you offer nothing other than the word genocide and the issue of the cowardly I don't judge the Celts.A licence to say and fabricate what you please without taking responsibility for it.You used the term genocide no one else then desperately seeking rhetorical wriggle room you postYou can't blame or even judge people out of their times.Well if you believe that withdraw the term genocide.
but it is a book of sounds and word play that could make no sense in any language except English.
You think that is all there is to the book ,sounds and word play?That without this dimentsion the book is senseless?There is so much more to the book that makes the scholarship of translations and reproduction of those sounds and wordplay worth while.If there was only sounds and wordplay it would not have got a first print.
But like most of what you post on this thread it is woefully meanspirited.[The monks were not Irish,the nobel Laureates wrote in English]
Joyce chose to excel in the better language,
Dublinese, so much more articulated with that extra tense than your common or garden Oxford English don't you think?
I'm gonna do it with the Irish with harsh fact.
Facts DC harsh or otherwise would make a welcome change from your barstool rhetoric.Try starting with your two faced position on Genocide.
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - June 03 2005 : 6:03:09 PM
1. and 2. As I clearly said, Ulysses has been translated "unsuccessfully" into many languages. Hard to see how the Irish can claim it as theirs when it had to be translated into their language, isn't it? But, they're pretty desperate. The urls provided - there are many others - show the difficulty of translating Joyce and no other language but English captures the world play and sounds, clearly evidenced in that one paragraph by the English speaking article author whom you quote and say is Chinese. Either a lie or sloppy reading.
3. I never claimed to be a man of letters. Another straw dog for your kennel of straw dogs, but I refer to the man not the work. You claim fame for people who were born Irish but who totally mastered English and wrote in it in preference to Irish.
3. Just type in "Joyce translations" to Google and read, Wild. What you quote isn't by someone who cannot speak English. It clearly demonstrates that translations don't and can't capture a great deal of Joyce's meanings. Further, the Chinese print what they want the people to read and isn't indicative of popularity or worth. It isn't in English, either. It clearly doesn't and could not make sense in Chinese - my point - as the author demonstrates.
4. Finnegan's Wake needs translation from English to English, I never mentioned or referenced it. You didn't know Ulysses was (also) dependent on word play and sounds that makes no sense in any other language but English. How embarrassing for someone harping on Irish great writers that you haven't actually read them.
5. There is no conflict, if you read English. But for the enjoyment of the casual reader, here are previous Wild quotes on these issues:
Yes a monastic one which flourished for 400 years under the protection and patronage of the Gaelic chiefs until devasted by the Vikings. {always someone picking on the Irish.....so sad} Of course according to you these Monks arrived from mars and were not part of a scolastic Celtic culture.You cannot even allow us our own culture.
But I do, Wild. I do. It's the one that killed off Ireland's aborigines. And we cannot blame or judge people out of our times.
But since you do to the British amid outright lies, I'm gonna do it with the Irish with harsh fact. See, Wild? Do you understand this bland and basic idea that if you get to libel people you condemn for merely conquering you and then for not using the atomic bomb on Russia and warring against surviving aborigines than I get to do it to you for your utterly absent aborigines, your claims that four arguable Celts won Nobels in English reflect well upon the Irish more than the culture they adopted (and denied it, being Irish), somehow, and claim the Irish illustrators of the Gospels somehow are more impressive than American Indian art of the same time?
Irish blarney and hypocrisy is so ingrained you don't recognize it and don't understand when others do.
Your young increasingly do, apparently.
|
| wILD I |
Posted - June 03 2005 : 4:59:32 PM
. |
| wILD I |
Posted - June 03 2005 : 2:43:06 PM
You hold out Ulysses as a great example of Irish genius,It is accepted as a work of genius.My use of it was to show how ridiculous it was to make a comparison between an Illiterate stone age people and the Irish.
but it is a book of sounds and word play that could make no sense in any language except English.Ulysses has been translated into more than twenty languages, including Irish.
Was it ever put in Gaelic, Wild? Being an Irish Nobel Laureate and all?
See above.And no it was not a Nobel Laureate.And you the great man of letters not knowing that?
Joyce chose to excel in the better language, and no, Wild, languages are not equal.
What was wrong with French?
Joyce experimented with different ways of expressing cat sounds: "mkgnao," "mrkgnao," "mrkrgnao," and, prosaically, "miaow."
So after much furtive searching on the web [refuge for the chronically deificent] you found a Chinese cat who could not speak English .Well even with that handicap the first Chinese edition of 85000 copies sold out.It's probably on its 6th reprint.
So much for your but it is a book of sounds and word play that could make no sense in any language except English.
Tell us again about the genocide inflicted by the Celts on the original peoples?
You live on land stolen from a people you murdered into non-existence.
You can't blame or even judge people out of their times.
Now when you sort out the above conflicting views and know your Ulysses from your Finnigans Wake I'll be only too glad to assist you with your other problems.
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - June 03 2005 : 09:48:40 AM
The book I refer to is Ulysses, because you brought it up. Pretty apparent you haven't read it. Ulysses is a book of sounds and wordplay, has been translated unsuccessfully into many langauges. Here's a piece in the Altantic about the Chinese translation attempts. http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/95sep/ulyss.htm
Molly and her lover, Blazes Boylan, eat Plumtree's Potted Meat during their assignation; the term is translated as "plum tree trademark canned meat." Good enough, but it misses the pun: "potted meat" was Dublin argot for sex. When Leopold recalls Molly's description of the plump Ben Dollard, that his fine singing voice was a "bass barreltone," the translation does not embody the play on words. His voice and shape, she is saying, are derived from barrels of Bass beer. Joyce experimented with different ways of expressing cat sounds: "mkgnao," "mrkgnao," "mrkrgnao," and, prosaically, "miaow." In Chinese, which does not have the array of sounds English has, the characters don't change.
Was it ever put in Gaelic, Wild? Being an Irish Nobel Laureate and all?
And here's a piece on Irish suicide. Every forty five minutes someone in the small state of Ireland, fecund land, tries to kill themselves. It's the foremost killer of Ireland's young men and still gaining ground in this meaningful Derby.
http://www.yfg.ie/article.php?sid=530&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
So, who thinks this is England's fault?
Who thinks it due to the nonstop litany of Irish self-congratulatory nonsense in their schools so at odds with the real world around the kids? A mythology that falls apart at first sober glance? Augmented or not by alcohol?
And who thinks it bears an uncomfortable amount of conformity with what some Native American groups wish to impart? |
| wILD I |
Posted - June 02 2005 : 04:25:34 AM
You hold out Ulysses as a great example of Irish genius, but it is a book of sounds and word play that could make no sense in any language except English.
Another one of your "facts".The book you refer to is Finnigan's wake.
 Ulysses has even been translated into Japanese. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - June 01 2005 : 5:02:53 PM
Stamping feet, tears, and leaving the fight the loser. So familiar.
It's not my judgement, Wild, it's accepted fact. The Celts did commit genocide. Others did as well. Big deal. We're all different now. But you won't admit it, because you have to maintain this ludicrous ehtical superiority and victimhood over the British. You think it makes them look bad, or at least makes the Irish look good. It does neither. It's foolish and inaccurate, and it is that attitude that's mostly to blame for Ireland's numerous, utter failures through the years, and quite probably the mass depression that drives your young men to hang themselves more than any other nation today.
You've never addressed that fact. How do you explain it? Who is responsible? The British? I dare you to even suggest it. How do you explain this failure of Ireland's? Deny it, apparently.
You hold out Ulysses as a great example of Irish genius, but it is a book of sounds and word play that could make no sense in any language except English. Joyce chose to excel in the better language, and no, Wild, languages are not equal.
And again, Wild, where is a smidgeon of proof that Ireland provided the backbone of education in Africa? Just another one of your huge, inflated lies, so exactly Orwellian, that you're used to getting away with in your role as poor, poor, put upon Ireland. To think of all the money that was raised in the United States through the years for potato bombs or that vanished altogether into the pockets of the IRA, who of course traffic with Islamic terrorists around the world, and what it could have actually accomplished in responsible hands. |
|
|
