| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - May 27 2005 : 10:23:35 PM
|
Wild,
1. "Just look at what you are suggesting. That these latin scolars were illiterate? What manner of convoluted Orwellian crap is that?.In what languages were they Illiterate ,Hun,Vandal,Visigot.Yes of course not being able to read they never realised that they were copying those great literary tomes of Vandal epics describing the sack of Rome.Making use of my "Cahill" I see they also had a command of Greek and Hebrew but Latin is the one of real importance being the language of civilization and of the educated and literary classes." A classic example of fabrication. Having said they mostly spoke (and wrote) Latin, I've removed "illiterate" from the possibilities. You had said they spoke mostly Irish, whatever that was at this unknown year. I stated that the monks spent time copying languages, character for character, in languages they could not read. That's true. That would be expected, given that so many of the languages were old if not dead.
2. "Just to paraphrase the above. A handful of monks under direction from Rome established eastern style monasteries where latin speaking illiterates toiled to no purpose." Paraphrasing is something else you can't do accurately.
3. It's very simple, Wild. Give us the dates of the Golden Era, and these other events.
4. This is ludicrous. "The church which developed in Ireland from 432 was intrinsically linked to Celtic Ireland. (NO! Really? Being physically there and all?) It was distinctly Irish with little contact with or control by Rome. (But the church itself, like Christianity, all its precepts, all its concepts, was not Irish. Not even St. Patrick was Irish....) The structure was based on the Irish "clann" structure and not the Roman (by which you mean Greek)diocises structure. (Meaning what, Wild? And why is this important?) They even calculated Easter differently and kept and embodied many of the old pagan practices.(from the people the Celts literally "wiped out," huh? But they're Irish, so immune from charges of genocide. Irish are victims!! And by the way, how is this different than in Spain or Sweden or anywhere they invented Saints to usurp old gods?)
5. "These high barbarians enthuastically embraced the new Christian philosophy.On an insignificant island among perhaps the last of a great barbarian race civilization found a refuge from the dark ages." That sounds like it means something, except that the Celts were the shadow of the Dark Ages themselves, Wild. What are you talking about? What percentage of the Irish were involved with the monks 'saving civilization?'
6. "When your replys to the ongoing issues reach a sufficently high intellectual standard then I'll gladly discuss it with you." Don't have to discuss it. Such a massive achievement - providing the backbone of education for the second largest contintent, surely must have a newspaper mention here or there? Or is it a classic case of Irish blarney and self congratulations for an non-existent achievement? Hard to say. Puzzling.
7. "The period under discussion is 432 to 800 plus." So what happened to the 500 years? In any case, here's an URL that puts folks in the midst of this uniquely Irish spin on Christianity. Just change "killed" to "embraced as a brother" and "slaughtered men, women, and children" to "swept up in the Spirit" and Irish history becomes alive for you as Wild would wish. http://www.rootsweb.com/~irlkik/ihm/ire600.htm It puts you down in 600 AD which is called The Golden Age....
8. "Well, confine replies to the issue which was "empire" not "nation."" I did, Wild, and encourage readers to go back and see how Wild is trying to bluff his way out.
9. "This from a man who demands dictonary definitions." Which isn't remotely relevant. You said England had no empire at a specific time, then later said it did, because you needed it as an example of (nonexistent) genocide, rape, plunder, etc.
10. "So what is the function of an empire if not to enrich the "mother country".And how about a list of countries where the boot was not employed." See, "rape and plunder" is somewhat more than "enriching the 'mother country.'" But you know, England lost money on its Empire for much of the 20th century. The boot is often employed, but in fact, I can only think of one 'empire' that comes close to your desired example: the Huns. They burned and plundered, returned and burned and plundered, and when it was all over they had zero to show for it except some gold and silver that doesn't seem to have made it back home with them. Nothing. No cities, no civilization, nothing. They literally vanished to history except for those offshoots who later learned and went native and are known as the Moguls.
5. "Since when was science employed to determine art,language,religion,cultural expression.Confused again I fear?" Ignorant still, I see? Archaelogy, paleontology, anthropology are "sciences." And if economics is a science, so is linguistics. In any case, the term Celtic is used to mean virtually anything for a varied group of peoples.
6. "As I said you can only concieve of war as the determining factor in human affairs." But I don't, have provided no examples of this inclination, and refute it. You want the Celts, against all evidence, to be the equals of the Romans and Greeks with this simmering civilization upon which you can elevate the Irish. They were just another horde of people, slightly different than those before and after, who conquered and were conquered in turn. Nothing special about my ancestors or yours. Interesting to us, but not special.
7. "Well first off it was barbarian against barbarian unlike your "civilized"pilgrims.But I sure you would not make that observation without proof that genocide did in fact occur." So the Irish are excused because they were barbarians? The previous, perhaps original people were there, the Celts came, and then the aborigines were gone without a trace and little dna record. Better evidence than you have for your accusations, where the whites came, slaughtered Indians in wars, but the Indians are still there. Again, you confuse Pilgrims with Puritans.
8."No DC I Speak Irish." I don't.
9. "If when the Narragansetts were attacked they numbered 4000 and at the end of the conflict the remaining 100 were shipped off as slaves to Xiangtan then it is accurate to say they were wiped out.Here again you get confused between the individual and the group." No, Wild, it is not accurate to say that. Entire African tribes were set upon and sold as slaves to the US, and people have recreated their blood lines. They were enslaved, treated like hell, but they weren't wiped out at all. You just want to use the most ghastly possible description so that the exaggerations you apply to the Irish don't seem so extreme.
10. "I beg your pardon you altered your description when confronted with your error." I illuminated my description when I realized you used it differently than I had.
11."So like much of what you post it was pointless" Don't think so.
12. "War again ???Off with you to the bullet thread" Off you go to read Irish history for those early Christian years with the entire nation serving those 11 monks saving civilization. You'll need a towel for the blood. Informative and Irish Url listed above.
13. "These posts are getting too long for you.Who was united in 800ad?" Apparently the endless dance line of folks training their soldier cadets with a Spring Break in Ireland. But, Franks, Danes, Berbers in Spain, Arabs in Baghdad, were united and functioning.
from second posting.....
"As can be seen from your posts DC you seem to have an irrational and illogical hatered of all things Celtic.To make any comparison between a race who were reduced to no more than anthropological oddites to a free soverign Celtic nation elevates your Orwellian psychosis to heroic depths." You can't help yourself, Wild. Words that sound good are used whether they mean anything. "Elevates" to "heroic depths" is one for the ages, though.
I have no illogical hatred - or any hatred - for whatever Celts are or were. Whatever the answer, a large swig of their blood is in me. Your problem is, that the Franks, the Belgians, probably the Germans, and a bunch of others are also Celts. The term is meaningless and too broad.
"Gaelic (note: when did Celtic became "Gaelic".....and why?) Ireland went into slow decline in the 17th century (hello? read the history again...) beginning with the exile of the Gaelic aristocracy,followed by Cromwell and then the Williamite wars in 1690s. English authority was in the ascendancy.All administration ,trade,education,armed forces were English.To survive Irish culture had to be abandoned.The Gaelic language was seen as a badge of poverty and ignorance.It could even be said to have been hated."Mere Irish" and "white apes"---not something to be proud of." Yes. Like the Afrikaner language, originally a badge of apartheid, now recognized as heritage and what the hey. "My people," the ennobled, god-like Scots, were also banned from their lands and burdened with crap and exiled against their will. We agree.
"In Ireland we had a Gaelic revival (Yes, well, there were several Scottish 'revivals,' the last featuring Australian Mel Gibson and the previous one Walter Scott) and from what I'v seen in Scotland, Scotish culture is alive and going strong.Your hatered belongs back in the 18th century.The Irish and Scots have gotten over it while you remain rooted in selfconscious embarrisment."
Not hardly. A card carrying member of the Clan MacLeod Society in the past(lost interest without Dame Flora), a bad player of the bagpipes - I may still have my Cumberland pipes - and I do play the five string banjo (the instrument invented so the hornpipes and reels could be played without pipes in the Colonies, needing a drone string). I've toured both Ireland and Scotland, visited Dunvegan, walked Culloden field, and wear the dress MacLeod tartan (that's the attractive yellow...and black number)with anything. I think it hideous, but I have great affection for it and my family.
"This gives rise to your asinine comparison of an illitrate stoneage tribal people with an nation who just in the field of literature alone have 4 Nobel Laureates. Only when you discover anything remotely like the Book of Kells or Joyce's Ulysses among the Amerindians will your comparison be worth discussing. [With apologies to MRW]" Well, the Book of Kells wasn't written by the Irish, it was illustrated by the Irish. Unless you're claiming the Gospels were composed by the Irish..... Whether the art in the books is better or worse than the art of the Native Americans isn't something I can say. Nor can you. In any case, I wasn't comparing the literary output of those cultures - most of whom, I recall, spent and spend a lot of time in England and elsewhere....- but since you again refuse to acknowledge what your government has, it needs to be resaid. Like the Native Americans, Ireland has an epidemic far above other nations of suicide in their young.
I believe one of the reasons for this, and the concurrent alcohol type issues, is the institutionalized victimhood - whatever the original justification for assuming it - that has long served as a unifying element for which need is past, if ever constructive at all. Scotland, in oversimplification, at least admitted to itself and the world that it had lost to England: it wasn't charmed by it. It wasn't happy with it. But it never seems to have believed its romantic scenes and blather (squeezing the Orange, toasting over the water)and just moved on. Much of Scotland faced bravely into the wind and joined the Empire. A hundred years after Culloden, the animosity was way down, and Scotland is in better shape for independence than ever. There's no horror of civil war in the wind, no IRA or Orangemen like throngs. There's no two centuries of Irish-like pointless slaughter that makes England cringe with what might happen should Scotland bid adieu. I think this is because Scotland admitted the obvious, which Ireland (and Kaiserine Germany)refused to do.
The same sort of thing (the comparison isn't exact) permeates through Native America still in certain sectors. Russel Means and crew are the past wanting this patriarchal revival. The incredibly competent CEOs of some tribes are offset by nepotistic scandals and family feuds in others, and it's in the latter that this romantic balderdash and fake mythologies emerge, and it keeps whole communities from moving on, honoring but saying goodbye to the past. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
  |
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 28 2005 : 3:34:03 PM
|
The structure was based on the Irish "clann" structure and not the Roman (by which you mean Greek)diocises structure. (Meaning what, Wild? And why is this important?)
Because what you are trying to do is to suggest that the monastic settlements and their work was not a product of Gaelic Ireland.That their scolarship and misionery work was not intentional.That their impact if any was minimal at best.That the monks who developed origional scripts and decorated their books with artwork of such mathamatical complexity were illiterate. On the contrary these were Gaelic Latin scholars [their own thoughts and views often written in the margins]who using Celtic script design and art allied to genius gave expression to the ideas and philosophies contained in these books.
But they're Irish, so immune from charges of genocide.
Well if you can at least provide the body from 300 bc then you can bring charges.
What percentage of the Irish were involved with the monks 'saving civilization?'
And
It puts you down in 600 AD which is called The Golden Age....
The golden age of christianity lasted perhaps 3 years and involved only one man.In Ireland the golden age lasted as long as it took to convert the first "king".How many men does it take to spread a philosophy?
See, "rape and plunder" is somewhat more than "enriching the 'mother country.'" But you know, England lost money on its Empire for much of the 20th century.
An incompetent Empire?but what does this justify?
The boot is often employed, but in fact, I can only think of one 'empire' that comes close to your desired example: the Huns. They burned and plundered, returned and burned and plundered, and when it was all over they had zero to show for it except some gold and silver that doesn't seem to have made it back home with them. Nothing. No cities, no civilization, nothing.
You don't know the difference between destruction and exploitation.Empire is not based on destruction it is based on exploitation.And for rape and pillage read exploitation.
Ignorant still, I see? Archaelogy, paleontology, anthropology are "sciences." And if economics is a science, so is linguistics. In any case, the term Celtic is used to mean virtually anything for a varied group of peoples.
Science is the study of the physical universe.Art,language,religion,cultural expression do not lend themselves to measurement.Unless you think the measurement of bones can determine civilization.
No, Wild, it is not accurate to say that. Entire African tribes were set upon and sold as slaves to the US,
The entire Narragansetts were not sold as slaves they were butchered.There is no comparison.
and people have recreated their blood lines.
Of course they had an entire tribe to work from.
They were enslaved, treated like hell, but they weren't wiped out at all.
Who is going to wipe out valuable property they paid top dollar for
You just want to use the most ghastly possible description so that the exaggerations you apply to the Irish don't seem so extreme.You just wanted one example and I got you a good one.
10. "I beg your pardon you altered your description when confronted with your error." I illuminated my description when I realized you used it differently than I had.
You do a lot of illuminating.
But, Franks, Danes, Berbers in Spain, Arabs in Baghdad, were united and functioning.
There was little identification with nationhood in the dark ages.Just taking your example of the Franks their king Charlemagne willed the kingdom split between his three sons.It was leaders not nations to which people gave their allegiance
"Elevates" to "heroic depths" is one for the ages, though.I'm sure a practioner of "double speak" such as yourself DC would be familiar with big brothers announcement "The sugar ration is being increased from 2 ounces a day to one ounce a day"
I have no illogical hatred - or any hatred - for whatever Celts are or were. Whatever the answer, a large swig of their blood is in me. Your problem is, that the Franks, the Belgians, probably the Germans, and a bunch of others are also Celts. The term is meaningless and too broad.
I have used Irish,Celtic,Gaelic all tied to this island so there is no ambiguity.
"Gaelic (note: when did Celtic became "Gaelic".....and why?)
"In Ireland we had a Gaelic revival (Yes, well, there were several Scottish 'revivals,' the last featuring Australian Mel Gibson and the previous one Walter Scott) and from what I'v seen in Scotland, Scotish culture is alive and going strong.Your hatered belongs back in the 18th century.The Irish and Scots have gotten over it while you remain rooted in selfconscious embarrisment."
Not hardly. A card carrying member of the Clan MacLeod Society in the past(lost interest without Dame Flora), a bad player of the bagpipes - I may still have my Cumberland pipes - and I do play the five string banjo (the instrument invented so the hornpipes and reels could be played without pipes in the Colonies, needing a drone string). I've toured both Ireland and Scotland, visited Dunvegan, walked Culloden field, and wear the dress MacLeod tartan (that's the attractive yellow...and black number)with anything. I think it hideous, but I have great affection for it and my family.
Well said a pity you allow a desire to score cheap debating points to usurp that affection
I believe one of the reasons for this, and the concurrent alcohol type issues, is the institutionalized victimhood - whatever the original justification for assuming it - that has long served as a unifying element for which need is past, if ever constructive at all.
You see it was a bad devorce.We did not remain friends the war continued, taking on an economic and propaganda form and the old animosities remained not helped by that putrifying bigoted turdish statelet of NI.Whatever about my generation the younger generation are confident optimistic forward looking Europeans taking pride in their culture and history without the victimhood you suggest.
Scotland, in oversimplification, at least admitted to itself and the world that it had lost to England: it wasn't charmed by it. It wasn't happy with it. But it never seems to have believed its romantic scenes and blather (squeezing the Orange, toasting over the water)and just moved on. Much of Scotland faced bravely into the wind and joined the Empire. A hundred years after Culloden, the animosity was way down, and Scotland is in better shape for independence than ever. There's no horror of civil war in the wind, no IRA or Orangemen like throngs. There's no two centuries of Irish-like pointless slaughter that makes England cringe with what might happen should Scotland bid adieu. I think this is because Scotland admitted the obvious, which Ireland (and Kaiserine Germany)refused to do.
This is very much the line the constitutionalists here took only to find that the armed force movement had hijacked the agenda.
Better to have died at Pearse's side than at Suvla or Tel El Kabir.And Britania's Huns with their long range guns sailed in from the foggy dew.
Different ways DC
You tak de high road an we'll tak low road
The same sort of thing (the comparison isn't exact) permeates through Native America still in certain sectors. Russel Means and crew are the past wanting this patriarchal revival. The incredibly competent CEOs of some tribes are offset by nepotistic scandals and family feuds in others, and it's in the latter that this romantic balderdash and fake mythologies emerge, and it keeps whole communities from moving on, honoring but saying goodbye to the past.
I think you posted that we are all guilty of it .Just look at the efforts of the Pentagon to find heros in Iraq.Tillman and ?{can't remember the little girls name]. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 28 2005 : 7:51:01 PM
|
1. "Because what you are trying to do is to suggest that the monastic settlements and their work was not a product of Gaelic Ireland. (It wasn't; the impetus is Greek and Asian. Even the Druids were not given to it.) That their scolarship and misionery work was not intentional.(Not true,how could it not be intentional?) That their impact if any was minimal at best. (I introduced the board to Cahill a long time ago; what the monks accomplished by hard work and the happenstance of being far away was great. But others did the same, as I've said, in Egypt and the Middle East. And it's no more representative or typical of Ireland than the work of MIT is typical or representative of the US. Less, actually.) That the monks who developed origional scripts and decorated their books with artwork of such mathamatical complexity were illiterate. (Again, this straw dog. I never said nor implied they were illiterate. You said they mostly spoke Irish, I corrected you to Latin.) On the contrary these were Gaelic Latin scholars [their own thoughts and views often written in the margins]who using Celtic script design and art allied to genius gave expression to the ideas and philosophies contained in these books. (True. What said I different?)
2. "Well if you can at least provide the body from 300 bc then you can bring charges." First, this isn't a made up charge. It's generally agreed that the Celts wiped out the original inhabitants (with the iron weapons they brought....), and the lack of alternate dna suggests they rarely intermarried. You've spent a lot of time claiming genocide and intent of genocide to the US and England, hampered by the fact that absolutely nothing prevented it from happening except popular will and all these Indians today. There is no longer any disagreement that unintentional disease was the cause of the great die-offs. Yet your own history has as clear an indication of actual genocide as any could have. So, your charges aren't just false, they're hypocritical.
3. The golden age of christianity (now it's Christianity? Originally it was Ireland's Golden Age.)lasted perhaps 3 years and involved only one man. (Who was....) In Ireland the golden age lasted as long as it took to convert the first "king".How many men does it take to spread a philosophy?" Don't know. But apparently all those Irish provide the educational "backbone" of Africa aren't needed then.
4. "An incompetent Empire?but what does this justify?" You weren't talking justification. You said Empires only existed to rape and plunder, and that isn't true.
5. "You don't know the difference between destruction and exploitation.Empire is not based on destruction it is based on exploitation.And for rape and pillage read exploitation." A large step down, Wild. Rape and plunder, your original overblown nonsense, isn't mere 'exploitation', but even that isn't always true. The British Empire evolved, it felt responsible (from a racist note of superiority often enough...)for its charges, and in the cold light of history it did good overall. It brought a sense of nationality to people who didn't have it before, it gave a common and highly efficient language (your laureates all wrote in it and not Gaelic), introduced the concept of civil rights to go with extensive civil service, and it raised the bar of expectations. It often brought disease, unknown to them and the aborigines, but that would have happened if no armies but only traders came.
6. "Science is the study of the physical universe.Art,language,religion,cultural expression do not lend themselves to measurement.Unless you think the measurement of bones can determine civilization." Gee, all this time universities thought those disciplines were science. Thanks for clearing that up.
7. "The entire Narragansetts were not sold as slaves they were butchered.There is no comparison. (That didn't happen. To say that is a fabrication. This is the second time you've claimed every single Narragansett was killed.)
8. "Of course they had an entire tribe to work from." Meaning what? "Tribe" has no numeric value. Again, you get caught in your outright fabrications. The Narragansetts were not all killed. To say so is a lie. Ask them.
9. "Who is going to wipe out valuable property they paid top dollar for" You said they were wiped out, which wasn't true, so you answer that.
10. "You just wanted one example and I got you a good one." No, you made up a fabrication. The Narragansetts were not wiped out at all, much less by the British as you claimed. They're still here. You're wrong.
11. "You do a lot of illuminating." I do. You need it.
12. "There was little identification with nationhood in the dark ages.Just taking your example of the Franks their king Charlemagne willed the kingdom split between his three sons.It was leaders not nations to which people gave their allegiance" Here, you try to insert the definition of nationhood to cover up that you were wrong: the peoples I gave you were as united and functioning as the great states previous to them, often enough dependent upon one man or his originating oligarchy. Ireland wasn't anywhere near as functioning as they were, and behind the curve and the times.
13. "I'm sure a practioner of "double speak" such as yourself DC would be familiar with big brothers announcement "The sugar ration is being increased from 2 ounces a day to one ounce a day." Your fascination with Orwell isn't helped by not understanding him. Further, your inflated rhetoric continues to show your desire to insert those annoying recognition scenes into your postings as well as your history. Nobody with any familiarity with Orwell would note Big Brother illustrations in my writing.
14. "I have used Irish,Celtic,Gaelic all tied to this island so there is no ambiguity." All Celtic is not Gaelic; all Gaelic is not Irish.
15. "Well said a pity you allow a desire to score cheap debating points to usurp that affection." They're not cheap and they haven't usurped my affection. How would they, in any case? I'm not stupid enough to claim "My gene pool, right or wrong!" as you do.
16. Entertaining the thought this theory of a hijacked agenda might be correct, how do you explain how that happened to yourself and why didn't it happen in Scotland? And how is it entirely - or even mostly - Britain's fault? And here's a thought: consider that the handy phrase about Pearse et al is utterly wrong. Why was it better? Certainly wasn't for Ireland.
17. "You see it was a bad devorce.We did not remain friends the war continued, taking on an economic and propaganda form and the old animosities remained not helped by that putrifying bigoted turdish statelet of NI.Whatever about my generation the younger generation are confident optimistic forward looking Europeans taking pride in their culture and history without the victimhood you suggest." But why and how did Scotland escape? It doesn't have an Ulster, but it is right on the border.
19. "This is very much the line the constitutionalists here took only to find that the armed force movement had hijacked the agenda.
Better to have died at Pearse's side than at Suvla or Tel El Kabir.And Britania's Huns with their long range guns sailed in from the foggy dew.
Different ways DC
You tak de high road an we'll tak low road"
"I think you posted that we are all guilty of it .Just look at the efforts of the Pentagon to find heros in Iraq.Tillman and ?{can't remember the little girls name]."
That's exactly correct. And I'm on record blasting the Pentagon and our media for these hoary constructs of heroism using dated templates ('fired till her gun was empty, and then....' is Davy Crockett, for heaven's sake.) Too many Irish chose to believe their idiocies, and the last two centuries defined their nation solely as anti-British. It was a stupid, self destructive tact, and only now is it going away.
I note you've given up validating your educational backbone of Africa claim, and choose not to address the high suicide rate. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 29 2005 : 7:19:31 PM
|
The British Empire began life as parasitic organised crime.It flurished through slavery and drugs.It gave America a civil war and the world the quintessential victim ,The African American.A more sullen resentiful bitter people would be impossible to find.
The British Empire evolved, it felt responsible (from a racist note of superiority often enough...)for its charges, and in the cold light of history it did good overall. It brought a sense of nationality to people who didn't have it before, it gave a common and highly efficient language
The British encouraged nationalism?????It imposed its customs and language and as for responsibility for its charges [read subjugated peoples]about as much as a slave owner.It taxed India to the extent of inducing famine in which 5 million perished.
And the nationalism you seem to think it encouraged was attacked and terrorised as a reaction to our declaration of independance.Civil rights ya mean when they got over slavery and penal laws?
But why and how did Scotland escape? It doesn't have an Ulster, but it is right on the border.
We took a course no different from the American colonies.In fact the rising of 1798 was inspired by the American war of Independance.As for Scotland escaping, the Scots were unfortunate to have to share the same island.The sea oh the sea ,is gra geal mo croi,long may it remain between England and me.
last two centuries defined their nation solely as anti-British.When you have a boot on your neck it is difficult to be develope other interests.We were either getting over one rebellion or plotting another one.
Genocide in 2300 BC as compared to genocide in 1876.You see no difference?In 2300 BC it was difficult to achieve and usually the result of the collision of two races.In 1876 against stoneage people the US had the means and intention .For genocide to occur it has to be planned as it was by the US.
(It wasn't; the impetus is Greek and Asian.
What ever about impetus the product was packaged in Ireland and delivered by Irish monks.
That didn't happen. To say that is a fabrication. This is the second time you've claimed every single Narragansett was killed.For all social activity of a distinctive people both internal and external to cease as a result of slaughter is for the purpose of historical debate annilation/wiped out/eradicated.Except for your web sites the Narragansetts ceased to register on the rader screen.Your "your wrong there's still one remaining" is from the Punch and Judy school of debate.
"Of course they had an entire tribe to work from." Meaning what? "Tribe" has no numeric value. Again, you get caught in your outright fabrications. The Narragansetts were not all killed. To say so is a lie. Ask them.
9. "Who is going to wipe out valuable property they paid top dollar for" You said they were wiped out, which wasn't true, so you answer that.
You were making the false comparison between the Narragansetts and Africans brought to America.The Africans were commercial property and as such were preserved the Narragansetts were treated as enemies and were wiped out.
I gave you were as united and functioning as the great states previous to them, often enough dependent upon one man or his originating oligarchy. Ireland wasn't anywhere near as functioning as they were, and behind the curve and the times.
My map for 814 shows Spain with 9 seperate "kingdoms"and England with as many not to mention the fragmented Germany. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 30 2005 : 08:24:29 AM
|
Cupla focail eile.
It is interesting to note that in the league of victimization Uncle Sam has provided us with 3 of the most prominent.
African American------slavery
Indian----------------conquest by genocide
Japan-----------------Nuclear holocaust.
It is also worth noting [with apologies to Dave]that thanks to the British Empire the Australians are defined by their penal colony status.Australia became a formal part of Britain's penal system in 1717. A TOTAL OF 123000 men and 25000 women were transported to the Antipodes.
The world's major religion is also defined by victimization with a formal recognition of the more outstanding victims as saints.
Really the Irish are only one among many victims whose plight because it is documented in English gets more attention than other more deserving cases. |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - May 30 2005 : 09:06:35 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
Cupla focail eile.
It is interesting to note that in the league of victimization Uncle Sam has provided us with 3 of the most prominent.
African American------slavery
Well, lets be honest here. American's didn't start slavery in the New World. The Spanish were the culprits. Good old Christopher Columbus was enslaving Arawak Indians centuries before the USA existed as an independent country.
quote:
It is also worth noting [with apologies to Dave]that thanks to the British Empire the Australians are defined by their penal colony status.Australia became a formal part of Britain's penal system in 1717. A TOTAL OF 123000 men and 25000 women were transported to the Antipodes.
1717?
Maybe you mean 1788, as that is the date the first fleet arrived.
Just as an aside Wild
British Australia owes its existance in part to the American revolution. After America seceded in 1783, the British could no longer send their convicts to the American colonies, so the decision was made to send them to Australia instead. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 30 2005 : 09:41:52 AM
|
Hi Dave
Nice to see you looking in.
Yes I agree slavery did not start in the US.
Thanks for the date correction.It was in 1717 that transportation of criminals became policy not that it was the year they arrived in Australia. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 30 2005 : 11:44:35 AM
|
Again, Wild, for the point here: even if all your hysterical balderdash was true, Ireland still loses. It has all the faults of the nations you decry (when you're not doing Uriah Heep) and none of the plusses in its history.
1. "The British Empire began life as parasitic organised crime...." True, more or less, but Ireland dealt in slaves from the beginning, and booze - a drug - played such a creative role in its history. St. Patrick, not an Irishman, was a slave to the Emerald Isle. For such horror, Patrick became the first known person to say slavery was wrong in general, not just because certain worthies were slaves. Even so, Ireland, every bit as ethically squalid as the English, never achieved any high points to average it off. England surely did. "It flurished through slavery and drugs.It gave America a civil war and the world the quintessential victim ,The African American.A more sullen resentiful bitter people would be impossible to find." Here, Wild, in aggregate with your mounting hysteria about Ireland's recent immigrants, you betray essential racism. First, you clearly haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. You would be hard to find a less resentful or bitter group than the slave descendents, given everything. Sure, there are those that are even worse than you portray, but on the whole that is way wide of the mark. American blacks ceased speaking with one voice a long time ago, and today share the political spectrum with the Anglos. I doubt you know any, in any case. If you followed the recent Bill Cosby excoriation of black parents (which applied to white as well), you'd know this.
2. "The British encouraged nationalism?????" (Yes. Did it intend to? Mostly, no.) "It imposed its customs and language and as for responsibility for its charges [read subjugated peoples]about as much as a slave owner." (then, you don't know what a slave is.) "It taxed India to the extent of inducing famine in which 5 million perished." (No, it didn't. Explain how you or anyone could know 5 mil. perished? To this day, there is questionable census in India. That's a number out of someone's butt. Famines in India came and went long before England. Until England and its mass communication, the world never knew.) "And the nationalism you seem to think it encouraged was attacked and terrorised as a reaction to our declaration of independance." (I'm sorry; India was affected by the Irish declaration of independence?) "Civil rights ya mean when they got over slavery and penal laws?" England evolved. Ireland didn't.
3. "We took a course no different from the American colonies." Really? The initial rebellion in America was pro-King and anti-Parliament. "In fact the rising of 1798 was inspired by the American war of Independance." Which apparently you don't understand to this day. "As for Scotland escaping, the Scots were unfortunate to have to share the same island.The sea oh the sea ,is gra geal mo croi,long may it remain between England and me." Right, so the Scots may not be 'better men'(your phrase) than the English, but they're better men than the Irish. They put the future in their sights, not revenge for the past.
"When you have a boot on your neck it is difficult to be develope other interests.We were either getting over one rebellion or plotting another one." Right. Why? They didn't work. Why not study and learn from people who generally succeed rather than the myths of people who don't?
"You see no difference?In 2300 BC it was difficult to achieve and usually the result of the collision of two races.In 1876 against stoneage people the US had the means and intention .For genocide to occur it has to be planned as it was by the US." Again, the libel. It wasn't planned, it wasn't carried out, it didn't happen. In Ireland, whether planned or not, it happened. Culture, living bodies, all gone. So that's the difference. You live on land stolen from a people you murdered into non-existence. We don't. But of course, as was clear from the beginning, the Irish can commit any atrocity because they're Irish and put upon.
"What ever about impetus the product was packaged in Ireland and delivered by Irish monks." The monks were mostly, not entirely, Irish. And again, not representative of the Irish, but of their church, whose names they took.
"For all social activity of a distinctive people both internal and external to cease as a result of slaughter is for the purpose of historical debate annilation/wiped out/eradicated." That's true neither in a legal nor a factual sense. "Except for your web sites the Narragansetts ceased to register on the rader screen." That's incorrect. "Your "your wrong there's still one remaining" is from the Punch and Judy school of debate." No, it isn't. And again, why don't you ask them?
"You were making the false comparison between the Narragansetts and Africans brought to America.The Africans were commercial property and as such were preserved the Narragansetts were treated as enemies and were wiped out." They were NOT wiped out. YOU made the comparison by claiming they were slaves.
"My map for 814 shows Spain with 9 seperate "kingdoms"and England with as many not to mention the fragmented Germany." Sure. And what's it show for Ireland? You said nobody was more together than Ireland for a year not 814, and even trying to finesse it you provide evidence you were wrong. You never admit it, though. Not once have you admitted to being wrong.
"Cupla focail eile. It is interesting to note that in the league of victimization Uncle Sam has provided us with 3 of the most prominent."
African American------slavery
Indian----------------conquest by genocide
Japan-----------------Nuclear holocaust."
This is probably the reason your young men hang themselves as soon as the clothesline becomes available , Wild. Embarrassment for the whines, lies, and denials in a nation of no recent accomplishments.
There was no genocide against the Indian officially wished for or, in any case, done. The only way you can claim that is by making genocide "mere" mass murder. You're wrong.
Japan, the most hated nation in the world since WWII began in China, was widely considered to have got what it deserved. There were no damp eyes in China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia when Japan got nuked which, in any case, didn't kill as much as the Tokyo firebombings. Only when it became possible for there to be a nuclear war did we, or anyone, become concerned, and Japan was able to manipulate that.
Slavery was a horror, and everyone - including the Irish - participated. It didn't come from England, England banned it long before we did, and we've paid big time for the shame and horror of it, African Americans most dearly. Still, there are prominent African Americans who publicly express, looking at Africa today, that all things considered and with no disrespect for their enslaved forebears, they are glad it happened because they're here. Callous? No. You can't blame or even judge people out of their times. I'm glad I'm Scot (I can't be proud of something I didn't do)and I'm glad I'm American. I could have been born in Dublin and trying to revenge myself against King Billy to this day. Pathetic.
"It is also worth noting [with apologies to Dave]that thanks to the British Empire the Australians are defined by their penal colony status.Australia became a formal part of Britain's penal system in 1717. A TOTAL OF 123000 men and 25000 women were transported to the Antipodes." So what? By the standards of the time, a good deal.
"The world's major religion is also defined by victimization with a formal recognition of the more outstanding victims as saints." Right. And virtually - if not totally - all fake, as they periodically admit.
"Really the Irish are only one among many victims whose plight because it is documented in English gets more attention than other more deserving cases." That probably reads better, or at least coherently, in the original Gaelic. But maybe not, because those Irish Nobel Laureates all wrote in English.
You still suffer from the notion that the world is totally tuned into Ireland and its mythology. That's self absorption beyond the Pale. Get over it, grow up, and move on. Like everyone else. You lost big time to England because you were composed of petty street gangs, no more. Ireland is an international joke, and the only way to ditch that - and maybe recover kids from hanging themselves - is to look forward and screw the past. England today isn't the England of 1800 or even 1916. So much of Ireland, as you represent it, is. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on May 30 2005 11:51:57 AM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 30 2005 : 5:11:31 PM
|
To judge the world of 300 BC by the standards of 1876 is ludicrous .To suggest that the uncordinated movement of barbaric peoples under pressure over which they had no control and the resultant collisions [not unique but a general phenomenon]amounted to genocide belongs in the realm of the school yard.Though it is no surprise coming from an "adult"who often exclaims "I won,I won."
If you can not see the difference between a primitive society reacting to circumstances beyond it's control and the planned actions of a sophisticated civilized State who motivated by greed not survival sets out in a calculated manner to destroy by slaughter,ethnic cleasing and imprisionment an indiginous people then further discussion on the issue is futile.
St. Patrick, not an Irishman,
You lace your posts with this kind of childish rhetoric.[the monks spoke latin not Irish,The Nobel laureates did not write in Irish].Laughable kiddy stuff.
The African American is defined by slavery.It the most important factor in their advancement/development.
The Indians are defined by conquest and genocide.It is the mostimportant factor in their decline.
The Japs are defined by nuclear strikes.No other people ever suffered this unique war crime.
The Irish are defined by 800 year struggle for independance.
The Brits are defined by their collasped Empire.The ****ty bits are still with us.N.I,Palastine,Iraq.
"It taxed India to the extent of inducing famine in which 5 million perished." (No, it didn't. Explain how you or anyone could know 5 mil. perished? To this day, there is questionable census in India. That's a number out of someone's butt.
Your replies are becoming more and more facile abandoning any kind of intellectual refutation and relying instead on argueing numbers.
England evolved. Ireland didn't.
Sure thanks to the British dept.of cultural affairs who provided such gems as the penal laws,plantation and ethnic cleasing,and designer famine.
They put the future in their sights, not revenge for the past.The Scots were conquered and as such took no decisions regarding anything.
For all social activity of a distinctive people both internal and external to cease as a result of slaughter is for the purpose of historical debate annilation/wiped out/eradicated." That's true neither in a legal nor a factual sense.
How then do you know the group still exists.
Still, there are prominent African Americans who publicly express, looking at Africa today, that all things considered and with no disrespect for their enslaved forebears, they are glad it happened because they're here.
The only people who can make that call are the people who suffered.Can you produce any evidence that the Africans lying in their own excrement on stinking US flaged slavers were of such optimistic outlook ?And what's wrong with Africa to day ?After all so much of it enjoyed the pleasure of Britainia's care.
You can't blame or even judge people out of their times.Except the Irish of 300 BC.
Ireland is an international joke. England today isn't the England of 1800 or even 1916.
England is the international joke.Hankering after it's lost status and ****ty empire by hanging onto Uncle Sam's hind tit. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 31 2005 : 12:20:35 PM
|
"To judge the world of 300 BC (why are we here?) by the standards of 1876 (or here?)is ludicrous .To suggest that the uncordinated movement of barbaric peoples under pressure over which they had no control and the resultant collisions [not unique but a general phenomenon]amounted to genocide belongs in the realm of the school yard." History and Science, rather.
"Though it is no surprise coming from an "adult"who often exclaims "I won,I won."" I've never said that whatsoever. I've pointed out the many times the Irish have lost. In any case, not as revolting as an adult who tries to cover the numerous and bloody failings of his gene pool and nation by trying to equate the actions of his chronic conquerors with Hitler and the very worst of our species, never admitting a single failing.
"If you can not see the difference between a primitive society reacting to circumstances beyond it's control and the planned actions of a sophisticated civilized State who motivated by greed not survival sets out in a calculated manner to destroy by slaughter,ethnic cleasing and imprisionment an indiginous people then further discussion on the issue is futile." I do see the difference. Although your description is wrong and self defeating and, for that matter, unknown and unproven. Now you're claiming the murdering Celts as victims, driven by events beyond their control to invade Ireland and slaughter the inhabitants. Yes, of course. The Irish are ALWAYS victims. And, of course, the Irish succeeded in their deed and the Americans don't seem to have tried hard, if at all. In any case, the ones we are accused of slaughtering are still among us. Not so for the targets of the Poor, Poor Celtic Invaders, sobbing as they slit throats.
"You lace your posts with this kind of childish rhetoric.[the monks spoke latin not Irish,The Nobel laureates did not write in Irish].Laughable kiddy stuff." And all true. Which of the Laureates could even read Gaelic, Wild?
"The African American is defined by slavery.It the most important factor in their advancement/development." They don't define themselves by it, although it was certainly true in the past, I'd say. They overcame it, and most would resent your claim, I'd wager.
"The Indians are defined by conquest and genocide.It is the mostimportant factor in their decline." Not true. American Indians were in various stages when the pandemics hit. Unintended disease isn't genocide. How odd no Indians define themselves by their conquest. Because they don't admit it.
"The Japs are defined by nuclear strikes. No other people ever suffered this unique war crime." Why is it a war crime? After all, the Japanese invented, before Guernica, aerial attacks on civilians in China. And they certainly don't define themselves by it. They have, after all, thousands of years of civilization when my ancestors and yours were playing wist with harbor seals and on a first name basis with rats.
"The Irish are defined by 800 year struggle for independance." The Irish are defined by 800 years of incompetence, failure, mutton headed stupidity, and the soaring suicide rate among its young men. While the whole rest of the British Empire managed to get out from under or flower within, Ireland managed to achieve almost nothing. Its literary greats wrote in England and were acknowledged by England and therefore the world. If they'd written in Gaelic, provided the language could support them at all, they'd be unknown.
"The Brits are defined by their collasped Empire.The ****ty bits are still with us.N.I,Palastine,Iraq." The Brits aren't defined by failure. They ruled 25% of the world at one point, to their surprise as much as history's. For a small country, about the size of Ireland, they've done quite well. They adapt, they lead the world in various areas, and their opinion still carries weight. Northern Ireland does okay, Palestine and Iraq have been a mess for millennia. Can't blame Britain for them.
"Your replies are becoming more and more facile abandoning any kind of intellectual refutation and relying instead on argueing numbers." Let's argue numbers. Prove your contention that five million died and that England caused it.
"Sure thanks to the British dept.of cultural affairs who provided such gems as the penal laws,plantation and ethnic cleasing,and designer famine." Everybody else seemed to do okay in the long run. Only the Irish failed utterly. It's always been someone else's fault, hasn't it Wild? Poor Ireland could have been a contendah if not for that mean old England.
"The Scots were conquered and as such took no decisions regarding anything." Gee, and they've done so well. Either England is better, or you're incorrect and Scotland was allowed to re-emerge with a government and to bloom again because it essentially renounced violence and found a place in the Empire. A big place, as it happens, given the military roster reads like a clan list throught the second world war.
"How then do you know the group still exists." I'll assume a question mark was intended. You know because the group still exists that it wasn't eradicated. See? Ghosts and Leprechauns don't count as people, so if that's all you have you can be assumed they're dead and gone. Indians are still here.
"The only people who can make that call are the people who suffered.Can you produce any evidence that the Africans lying in their own excrement on stinking US flaged slavers were of such optimistic outlook ?And what's wrong with Africa to day ?After all so much of it enjoyed the pleasure of Britainia's care." Of course the slaves were screwed, never said otherwise. But what's your point? Mine was that many of their descendents are glad they're Americans even so. And the nations doing best in Africa were British colonies once.
"You can't blame or even judge people out of their times.Except the Irish of 300 BC." Don't know why we're at 300 BC today, but if you accuse people of genocide when their victims' descendents are with us while your own forebears slaughtered to extinction the previous people, you can expect to get called on it. Who, in turn, may have done it to whoever was there before them. Your hypocrisy is astounding, Wild. You brag about Celtic Civilization up to the point where they're to be held accountable, and then they're poor, poor barbarians and what does the world expect? Like every mewling drunk in the world. And I don't condemn the Celts for it, in any case. I am Celt.
"England is the international joke.Hankering after it's lost status and ****ty empire by hanging onto Uncle Sam's hind tit." Odd, international investment doesn't reflect that, but then, England's young don't hang themselves at Ireland's rate. Nobody's does, of course. Imagine. A choice between a choking death in your twenties or listening to more self-congratulatory garbage, nonsense, and bombast that nobody with a lick of sense could believe. And choosing the noose. What a country, Ireland. At least it has its proud military victories to ....... well, its great artists who wrote and worked in Engl.......well it's pretty when the sun's out.......... at least your young are proud of you! Good job! |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on May 31 2005 12:35:22 PM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 31 2005 : 3:59:49 PM
|
You can't blame or even judge people out of their times.
And
Tell us again about the genocide inflicted by the Celts on the original peoples?
DC before proceeding any further and in the interest of fair debate perhaps we could clear up what appears to be a conflict which has arisen in the views you hold.
Both of the above statements are clear and unambigious but they conflict so your position on this issue becomes untenable.I know that in the past you have admitted mistakes which allows discussion to continue at a cerebal level so please take some time to consider the above. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 01 2005 : 12:21:39 PM
|
There's nothing conflicting in the statements, Wild. One is a request for you to admit your Celts committed genocide, the first is a statement that you can't judge people by the standards of a different time. I don't judge the Celts, nor consider the violent past one for which people should be held responsible today.
You do, at least as applied to England. And more than anything, you resent Ireland be held responsible for its state and self by the same standards as you hold England. If it suits you, you brag about the Celtic Civilization that founded Ireland. Then, when they kill off an entire people, they're poor barbarians, and not content with that idiocy, you suggest they were forced to the deed. Awwwwwwwwwwww. The poor things.
You tried to win a point by saying England had no empire in the mid 1600's. True so far as title, but not in reality, given New England if nothing else. But then, when you need sweeping (and inaccurate) generalizations about how England's Empire was founded on slaves and pillage, you have to abandon that, ignore the private corporations for which you hold the Brit government entirely responsible, and fabricate.
You haven't admitted Ireland's epidemic of young suicide. By any standard, a sign of a sick culture. You cannot deny it, and your government does not.
Your fall back position of Four Nobel Laureates defeats your purpose, since they were selected based on their writings in a language alien to Ireland. If Italy bragged about four expatriot Laureates who wrote entirely in Chinese, who deserves the bragging rights? Italy or China?
You haven't provided evidence for your claim that Ireland was the educational backbone of Africa. World class horse hockey.
Do you contest that Patrick was kidnapped as a slave by Irish off of the west coast of the main island, the important one where things work? There's iffy evidence he was born in Somerset. Whatever his affections for Ireland, he wasn't Irish.
You pretend that somebody mouthing off about killing a group represents the entire nation, disregarding the opposition and the fact it did not happen. That's what happened here. You get defensive about your own people carrying it out by any of the numerous definitions. Gone. Killed.
You toss around accusations of genocide as if you're only calling someone or some nation a Big Silly. Those are serious accusations, they aren't true of any country except Germany, likely Turkey, and Rwandans despite everyone's attempt to bland out the definition so it's applicable for social snubs and despite the fact that every nation has people as bad as Eichmann and Hitler. But although these were industrial attempts to eradicate people, nobody succeeded like, well, Ireland. The Celts found a weaker people who had nowhere to go and they were slaughtered. Genocide as a term was invented to denote something worse than mass murder and to suggest the intent of the actions.
You can't hurl things like that around, then say "I have nothing but respect..." for the people you've just accused of genocide and not expect to get hammered. You can't break out in song and non sequitors like this last posting. If you're not sharp enough to follow it, that's one thing. But you're clearly used to being able to say vicious things and then skip away under the guise of the put-upon Irish.
It's malarkey, and unfortunate that the fruit of that tree of balderdash hang by the noose. And again, the Irish fail to take responsibility. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - June 01 2005 : 2:31:43 PM
|
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.
I don't judge the Celts
There's nothing conflicting in the statements, Wild. One is a request for you to admit your Celts committed genocide,
You have made a clear and unambigious judgement that the Celts were guilty of genocide.You offer nothing by way of understanding the times they lived in and yet you dismiss any of my efforts with a mocking---Not so for the targets of the Poor, Poor Celtic Invaders, sobbing as they slit throats.And yet you post You can't blame or even judge people out of their times.
Sorry DC but debating at that level of convolution is of no interest to me.
My thanks for your contributions and good luck to you. |
Edited by - wILD I on June 01 2005 2:35:20 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
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. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
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. |
Edited by - wILD I on June 02 2005 04:54:10 AM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
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? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on June 03 2005 10:11:25 AM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
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.
|
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - June 03 2005 : 4:59:32 PM
|
| . |
Edited by - wILD I on June 03 2005 5:04:18 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
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.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on June 03 2005 6:09:35 PM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
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
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
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. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
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?
|
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
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. |
Edited by - dave on June 07 2005 10:23:29 AM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
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? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
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.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Ireland, Native Americans, and LBH
