Unemployed English Girl to Wed Soldier from Welfare Family II

95 posts / 0 new
Last post
al-Qa'bong

Maysie wrote:

alQ wrote:
Slave colonies?  Go whistle "Strange Fruit" up your most accessible orifice, bud.

What a racist, ahistorlcal and offensive phrase.

Canada had slaves.

To use the song "Strange Fruit" as a violent sexualized insult (perhaps you aren't aware male slaves were often castrated and raped before being lynched? Or perhaps you are?) is despicably offensive.

Shame.

Unbelievable.  Mentioning a song title is now considered offensive on babble.

Sploghm.

 

MegB

al-Qa'bong wrote:

Unbelievable.  Mentioning a song title is now considered offensive on babble.

Sploghm.

That's disingenuous.  You know it's not "just a song title".  It's a brilliant and disturbing metaphor for lynching, and using it to insult someone - to literally tell them to shove their "Strange Fruit" up their ass - is so obviously offensive there's no defense for it.

Maysie Maysie's picture

So, just to re-cap:

alQ wrote:
 Mentioning a song title is now considered offensive on babble.

Is the defence for this phrase:

Quote:
Go whistle "Strange Fruit" up your most accessible orifice, bud.

What a pathetic attempt to deflect from the issue. I assume an apology to the babble community is out of the question.

Frmrsldr

Catchfire wrote:

Were you using the word "slave" in the Marxist "wage slavery" sense when you referred to Britain's "slave colonies," Frmrsldr? If so, you are mixing metaphors in a very unfortunate way. Many leftists, from communists to privileged liberals, not to mention philosophers, moralists and religious folk have used slave in an ahistorical manner. Most of the good ones have the good sense to distinguish when they are using it in a simple master-slave dynamic from what we in the twenty-first century have grown to understand as one of the worst crimes humanity has committed: the total subjugation of one human to another, without any of the class benefits liberalism affords bourgeois nations like Canada, "inequality" notwithstanding.

Your usage of "slave colonies" demolishes your claim that you hoped to use the term simply in the Marxist tradition (which itself could be said to be spurious, but that's beside the point). Instead, you hoped to draw metaphorical connections between the terrible, inhuman violence that went on in the real colonies of empire and those who had the privilege of being born pasty in an empire on which the sun never sets. Shame.

My definition of slavery was forcing people through the use of violence to do things that they would not naturally or want to do for generations. An example of this would be exploiting people and extorting their "property" and "goods" from them.

You would contend that taking land away from Indigenous people and putting them on reservations where the food source was unsustainable, kidnapping their children and committing cultural genocide by attempting to extiguish their culture and replacing it with white culture - is not to treat them as slaves?

What we were discussing was (your) narrow definition of "traditional slavery" versus (my) broad definition of "slavery" where I included (but did not make it exclusive to) Marx's concept of "wage slavery."

Capitalist (Marxian style "wage") slavery existed in the 18th and 19th Centuries within the British Empire. The Hudson's Bay Company and other colonial administrators kidnapped people from India and sent them to Caribbean colonies to work the sugarcane industry. They forced Chinese people to work on opium and tea plantations. They forced people in India to work on opium and tea plantations. People from India were sent to Cape Colony (South Africa) and forced to work on railway lines and in mines. People from India were sent to Fiji and forced to work as "wage slaves" in the agricultural industry.

As I said, slavery consists of more than human bondage and exchanging human beings for money.

You want to know what a victim of slavery's opinion is about my definition of slavery?

Ask someone who was sold as a child to the sex trade industry.

Ask someone who was kidnapped and forced to become a child soldier and/or camp servant/sex slave (especially if a girl) in the Ivory Coast, Liberia, Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, etc., and kidnapped or possibly sold to become a child soldier (if a boy) in Afghanistan.

Ask a poor Afghan or Indian girl or woman (aged 12 to twenty something) who had an arranged marriage to a man in his 40s to 80s who is the victim of emotional, physical and/or sexual abuse.

Ask someone in a developing country who is forced or who was forced to make their children work in a Western-owned sweatshop where they work for less than a living wage.

 

Frmrsldr

Catchfire wrote:

Instead, you hoped to draw metaphorical connections between the terrible, inhuman violence that went on in the real colonies of empire and those who had the privilege of being born pasty in an empire on which the sun never sets. Shame.

You've lost yourself in your own mixed metaphors to the point where you are on the wrong side of the issue, Catchfire.

What is your distinction between the "real" colonies of empire and "those who had the priviledge of being born pasty in an empire on which the sun never sets"?

I make no such distinction. All of Britain's colonies were "real" colonies "in an empire on which the sun never set."

The terrible, inhuman violence that occurred was real that occurred in the "real" empire. I make no such claim that it (the violence) was "metaphorical."

The distinction that I make between the former slave colonies and the ones that are no longer slave colonies and the ones that (voluntarily) still are, is this: Those that are no longer slave colonies are the ones that after they gained independence abolished the monarchy. Those that are still (voluntarily) slave colonies are those that after "independence" have not (yet) abolished the British monarchy; as head of state the real power behind the real terrible, inhuman violence that occurred in the real British empire in the past and which is the symbolic figure of that (real terrible, inhuman violence of the past) today.

Those who fawn and gush all over the British monarchy are celebrating an institution that was the head of an empire in which "those who had the priviledge of being born pasty" perpetrated such terrible, inhuman violence against the "non-pasty" indigenous people by murdering them, stealing their land, liquidating to extinction/near extinction their sources of food, exploited their land of its resources, forced them to work for their "pasty" overlords to death or detriment of health and (often) attempted to take their culture away from them and replace it with their "pasty" culture. This occurred in all of Britain's colonies, not just in some of them.

So I don't know what history that Tom Richards idiot was talking about when he spewed his monarchy loving detritus.

I don't know you well enough, so I can only go by what you post.

Seeing that you open threads that at best only poke mild humor at the British monarchy and royal family, and that you posted that Tom Richards monarchy loving garbage above uncritically to distance yourself from it,

Am I correct in concluding that you support what Leon Trotsky aptly termed this "useful idiot" or enabler of the British monarchy and all that it did and stood behind in the past and represents today?

Frmrsldr

6079_Smith_W wrote:

It's not as if they have to like the two men, but they should have at least recognized that they represent a lot of people and that the role of a figurehead isn't to just side with their little clique. 

More of as monarchy is an unelected institution it has no vested interests and represents no one, bunkum.

Monarchy represents itself. Its vested interests are its own interests.

That is why monarchy gets very nervous whenever the word "abolish" is mentioned.

That is why the British royal's PR firm have sent their little envoys Kate and Villie for a goodwill ambassadorial working holiday tour to Canada that coincides with the First of July.

It's part of a centuries old propaganda/conditioning/brainwashing campaign that people like you and Catchfire and others who fawn and gush all over, defend and attempt to come up with excuses for the British monarchy/crown/royals, are enabling.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Hi Frmrsldr, knock off your baiting and personal attacks, or you'll be taking an extended vacation from babble, in honour of the royal visit.

jas

I have always mildly supported the monarchy since I kind of like Elizabeth; I don't know why. It seems fitting or at least not too offensive to be charmed and awed by her presence, especially as she has such a character and history about her.

However, with these younger two, I don't feel at all the same, even though I think William is very charming and nice to look at. It was the first time for me that I felt somewhat indignant at hearing a monarchy expert on the CBC (and on CTV) advising us "how to behave" around the royals. "How to respond if they approach you." I don't think I could work up the deference of a curtsy or a bow with Kate and William, and if they approached me, I would offer the same greeting I would offer to anyone else. A smile and a handshake. This time around the monarchy thing is hitting home for me and I don't think it's appropriate to continue the dynamic of "royal and subject" with this generation. I think these two would do well to dispense with the high formalities, and broadcast instead an image of equality and commonality, much like politicians and celebrities do, if they want to see the monarchy continue.

Frmrsldr

6079_Smith_W wrote:

It is worth pointing out the irony though, that although there was an abolotion movement, and growing restriction within Canada, the legal institution of slavery only ended when the practice was outlawed throughout the British Empire. 

What a tautological (circular) and meaningless argument.

By your own admittance, Britain did not end the "legal institution of slavery" worldwide.

Therefore, your statement must be rewritten to read: "... the legal institution of slavery only ended throughout the British Empire when the practice was outlawed throughout the British Empire."

wikipedia wrote:

The Slave Trade Act (citation 47 Geo III Sess. 1 c. 36) was an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed on 25 March 1807, with the long title "An Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade".... The act abolished the slave trade in the British Empire, but not slavery itself; that had been abolished in England, in Somersett's Case in 1772, but remained legal in most of the British Empire until the Slavery Abolition Act 1833.

... After British ended their own slave trade, they pressed other nations to do the same. This reflected both a moral sense that the trade should be stopped everywhere and fear the British colonies would become uncompetitive. [Frmrsldr's note: Britain's ending the slave trade was not soley motivated by moral and humanitarian considerations. Even after first the slave trade on the Atlantic Sea and then slavery in the British Empire were ended, did this end the inequalitarian nature of the relationship between Britain and its colonies? Did it stop Britain from exploiting and abusing its colonies, their land, their resources and their (the subjugated nations, peoples and cultures) indigenous peoples as inferiors, as less than human beings, as slaves? Most certainly not.]

... The United States acted to abolish its African slave trade the same year (but not its internal slave trade); like Britain, it did not abolish slavery at that time. Slavery itself was legal in most of the British Empire until the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 came into effect; slavery continued to exist in other nations as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_Trade_Act_1807

6079_Smith_W wrote:

So of course, political slavery is a terrible evil, but I can think of one nation which could have done with a bit of firm hand, rather than how they ended up settling the matter.

America gained its independence in 1783.

So after 1833 how could Britain force America/U.S.A. to end slavery as practiced internally in America/U.S.A.?

Remember your above statement of "... the legal institution of slavery only ended when the practice was outlawed throughout the British Empire."

America/U.S.A. was not part of the British Empire at that time.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

But if freedom means the freedom to keep slaves, and the freedom to set a record for the number of citizens killed on the battlefield in one day which still stands today, fair enough.

wikipedia wrote:

Although Portugese Prime Minister Marques de Pombal abolished slavery in mainland Portugal on February 12th, 1761, slavery continued in Portugal's overseas colonies, particularly Brazil, until its final abolition in 1888.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Brazil

The U.S. Civil War was not the end of the "legal institution of slavery" (elsewhere in the world) as you define it.

Was your failing to mention any dates and failing to mention such historical facts while confusing the eras and facts you did present an unintentional oversight or was it by design?

Frmrsldr

jas wrote:

This time around the monarchy thing is hitting home for me and I don't think it's appropriate to continue the dynamic of "royal and subject" with this generation. I think these two would do well to dispense with the high formalities, and broadcast instead an image of equality and commonality, much like politicians and celebrities do, if they want to see the monarchy continue.

How can you do that when there are centuries of laws and conventions in Britain and Canada and all of Britain's former colonies that still have the British monarch/crown as head of state that entrench this inegalitarian institution?

The 1701 Settlement Act is a law that guarantees Villie will some day inherit all the powers, rights, priviledges, etc., that come with the position of monarchy that the queen now has. This is institutionalized inequality.

If you wish to end it, you have to abolish the monarchy and repeal all the laws associated with it and this consequent inegalitarianism.

Frmrsldr

Catchfire wrote:

Hi Frmrsldr, knock off your baiting and personal attacks, or you'll be taking an extended vacation from babble, in honour of the royal visit.

Oh sure, if you can't show the fallacy in another's argument, then use argumentum ad baculum (resort to force) by branding them as engaging in "baiting", ad hominen arguments and threaten to suspend them.

Attacking one's principles and not the person is not engaging in an ad hominen argument.

The only place where it can be said that I attacked a person was in my criticism of Tom Richards whom you uncritically quoted.

And poking fun of Kate and Villie is not considered ad hominem?

Black pot, meet black kettle.

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Frmrsldr wrote:
The only place where it can be said that I attacked a person was in my criticism of Tom Richards whom you uncritically quoted.

 

Frmrsldr wrote:
It's part of a centuries old propaganda/conditioning/brainwashing campaign that people like you and Catchfire and others who fawn and gush all over, defend and attempt to come up with excuses for the British monarchy/crown/royals, are enabling.

These are the personal attacks I was talking about. The baiting is the seven or eight last posts of yours, unprompted, which appear to be an attempt to restart an argument no one was having with you. I haven't said a word about abolishing the monarchy, or keeping it, yet you keep up with your hostile and insulting remarks. I won't tell you what I think about young Tom Richards, but anyone who's read a post of mine should be able to guess. This is your final warning, FS. Take a step back or enjoy your royal vacation.

 

Frmrsldr

Frmrsldr wrote:

The only place where it can be said that I attacked a person was in my criticism of Tom Richards whom you uncritically quoted.

Catchfire wrote:

I won't tell you what I think about young Tom Richards,...

Who cares about Tom Richards? Unless he's a fellow babbler, forget about him. He's not important. What's important are your and not anyone else's, opinions on monarchy.

Catchfire wrote:

These are the personal attacks I was talking about[:] The baiting is the seven or eight last posts of yours, unprompted, which appear to be an attempt to restart an argument no one was having with you.

Remember my definition of an ad hominem argument: it is where one attacks the person and not the principles. The fact that I was addressing principles which are perpetually present in babble threads, and not persons, who were not present at the time, only serves to underscore this point.

I suppose to be entirely blameless, I should have replaced the name in question with the word "quote."

So logically debating (in this case by disagreeing) with the principles of others and logically debating (in this case defending) my principles is seen by you as "baiting"?

Catchfire wrote:

... but anyone who's read a post of mine should be able to guess.

I have "read a post of yours" - all of them - in this and other recent threads on monarchy. All I've been able to gather is that you like to poke fun in a tabloid journalism way of Kate and Villie and you uncritically quote passages that are favorable of them without adding any comments of your own.

At least I have done a fellow babbler (in this thread nonetheless) the courtesy of directing them to some threads I have posted on when I thought they misrepresented my views.

Catchfire wrote:

I haven't said a word about abolishing the monarchy, or keeping it, yet you keep up with your hostile and insulting remarks.

If you open threads that take a tabloid journalism approach on monarchy and uncritically post a quote from an obvious (pro) monarchist and yet insist on refusing to say a "word about abolishing the monarchy, or keeping it," in your defense, then you can't in all fairness and honesty complain to me that I'm being "hostile and insulting" toward you when I claim that you are part of this fawning and gushing phenomenon that enables the monarchy to continue.

Catchfire wrote:

This is your final warning, FS. Take a step back or enjoy your royal vacation.

Frmrsldr wrote:

It's part of a centuries old propaganda/conditioning/brainwashing campaign that people like you and Catchfire and others who fawn and gush all over, defend and attempt to come up with excuses for the British monarchy/crown/royals, are enabling.

So let me see if I understand this correctly:

In this quote where I invite any babbler who reads it to discuss the principle or idea of whether the reason why monarchy and the British royals are (largely?) popular today is the result of centuries of propaganda/conditioning/brainwashing and has resulted in the phenomenon of rational and logical people becoming emotional and defensive whenever the prospect of abolishing the monarchy arises - as I put it, "fawning and gushing" and thus enabling (monarchy), is considered a personal (i.e., ad hominem) attack and baiting and considered worthy of the threat of suspension,

wrote:

... Go whistle "Strange Fruit" up your most accessible orifice..."

(Cont.) whereas the above quote invites the person specifically addressed, to do what honorable and beneficial act?

This quote does not constitute a personal (ad hominem) attack and baiting and is not considered worthy of the threat of suspension, in your opinion?

Perhaps my views on impartiality and justice are too metaphorical and hyperbolic for the "reality" of babble.

Or:

Oh, I get it I am such an accomplished slavemaster that through the internet I made the shall we say, "whistling instructor" my slave and forced him/her to react to my post in the manner they did.

What am I, the "baiter" (or is that "baitor"?) who refuses to be "baited"?

I'll close this post with a self-deprecating joke that by itself alone, will either give you one helluva laugh, cause me to be suspended or both:

If I am such a master at the art of "baiting,"

then what does that make me,

a "masterbaiter"?LaughingWinkTongue outInnocent

 

6079_Smith_W

@ Frmrsldr

Sorry, I am no sure what you are on about in #59.

If it wasn't clear from my statement that I meant that slavery was ended IN CANADA when it ended through out the Empire, then let me clear that up now. I think the all-important date you accuse me of being cagey about (again... why??) is 1834.

And seeing as you missed the not-so-subtle point, I'll re-state it: I find it kind of ironic that you refer to our relationship with Britain as political slavery when the British parliament used its political control over our countries (the colonies which later became Canada,in case you don't get my meaning)  to end the institution of REAL slavery.

And of course I know Britain had no power over the U.S. after independence. I said nothing to imply that it did. Again, the not-so-subtle point is that so-called political freedom doesn't always mean much in practice. Both for those who were made actual slaves in your southern states, and the other residents of those states after your civil war was over, when they found their nations were compelled to answer to a more powerful force. 

I am sure the good people of Vicksburg (who refused to celebrate July 4 until the later half of the 20th century) and Atlanta are at least as aware of the concept of political slavery as people in our country are.

And also, I am not sure if you just don't understand my meaning, or whether this is a deliberate attempt to pick apart and twist the comments of others rather than engage the issue in a direct and legitimate way. Whatever it is, it pisses me off, and I don't think it serves your cause or your reputation well. 

Frmrsldr

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And seeing as you missed the not-so-subtle point, I'll re-state it: I find it kind of ironic that you refer to our relationship with Britain as political slavery when the British parliament used its political control over our countries (the colonies which later became Canada,in case you don't get my meaning)  to end the institution of REAL slavery.

I know you don't understand my meaning. That is why I'm going to attempt to explain it to you.

If you still don't understand, you are welcome to ask again.

I'll explain it to you again. I'll keep on explaining it for as long as you continue to possess that wonderful thirst for knowledge that I and other babblers share.

First, you limit slavery to the sale and bondage of human beings as the "REAL" slavery - institutionalized slavery of say ~1603-1863 or 1888, if you like.

This is to deny all the other "REAL" slavery like selling or forcing children into the sex trade industry. Children kidnapped and forced to be child soldiers and servants/sex slaves for warlords. Children and adults forced to work in sweatshops for less than a living wage. Girls and women who are sold or forced into arranged marriages who are often sexually, physically and emotionally abused. Even women in the developed world who are in "free" marriages or relationships can be treated like prisoners or slaves by sexually, physically and emotionally abusive husbands or boyfriends. IF you are denying that this is slavery, THEN you are marginalizing or outright ignoring your fellow human beings (both of the present and the past) and their suffering.

There is also such a thing as psychological/mental/emotional slavery. This can be a very ugly component of physical slavery but it can also stand by itself.

In a monarchist society where a ("royal") family according to law and convention, is by virtue of birth, where their power, rights, priviledges and "value" or "worth" as human beings is greater than that of everyone else in their society, then their relationship to everyone else is that of master and slave; master and servant; superior and inferior; superior and subordinate. What other words would you use to describe this relationship?

Institutionalized slavery ended in the British Empire in 1833.

Institutionalized slavery ended in America/U.S.A. in 1863.

Institutionalized slavery ended in Brazil in 1888.

What has this got to do with the institutionalized inequality of a monarchic society and its practice of colonialism/imperialism that enslaved nations and their peoples and where those nations and peoples still pay homage to the historical fact of this relationship by feting the current monarch of Britain and her grandchildren?

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

You seem to suggest that a certain number of "Peers of the Realm" or Empire who were motivated by philanthropic and humanitarian considerations were responsible for ending institutionalized slavery in the British Empire.

If you think we are so naive to believe that, then you do us a disservice.

Sure, beneficial events occur as the result of great efforts by humanitarian and philanthropic persons.

But human nature being what it is, beneficial events are also a mix of greedy and selfish acts and motivations as well. This is true with the abolition of institutionalized slavery in the British Empire as it is with anything else.

In 1833 institutionalized slavery was ended throughout the British Empire.

That is ALL that happened and NOTHING ELSE.

All the evils and atrocities that colonialism/imperialism inflicts upon human beings - including all other forms of (noninstitutionalized) slavery - based on racism, prejudice, discrimination, inequality, greed and hate, continued to occur throughout the British Empire and were committed by its perpetrators in the name of the head of the British government and Empire - the British crown/monarch.

Let us now turn to another aspect of your arguments on institutionalized slavery. Your first premise starts out thus: Institutionalized slavery was ended throughout the British Empire in 1833. Let's, in a step-by-step process, go from this first premise to the next premises that logically follow from the first, and see what inescapable logical conclusion this takes us to.

Logically, your aguments look like this:

Premise 1: Britain ended institutionalized slavery throughout its Empire in 1833.

Premise 2: America/U.S.A. ended institutionalized slavery in 1863.

Conclusion 1: Britain ended institutionalized slavery throughout its Empire before America/U.S.A.

Premise 3: To end institutionalized slavery is a morally meritorious act.

Premise 4: Britain ended institutionalized slavey throughout its Empire before America/U.S.A.

Premise 5: Britain ended institutionalized slavery throughout its Empire in a relatively nonviolent way.

Premise 6: Institutionalized slavery was ended in America/U.S.A. in a horrifically violent way.

Conclusion 2: As ending institutionalized slavery is a meritorious act and as Britian ended it throughout its Empire before America/U.S.A., and since Britain did it in a much less bloody and violent way, it therefore follows that Britain is a greater moral agent/force/being than America/U.S.A.

Premise 7: Institutionalized slavery was first ended by Britain throughout its Empire before any other North Atlantic power or Empire of its time.

Conclusion 3: Britain, therefore must have been the greatest moral agent/force/being for that time and place.

Premise 8: Britain was the greatest moral agent/force/being for that time and place.

Premise 9: Britain was an Empire and has a monarch as head of state.

CONCLUSION: As Britain was the greatest moral agent/force/being for that time and place and as Britain was an Empire and as Britain has a monarch as head of state, then Britain's Empire with its colonialism/imperialism and head: i.e., crown/monarchy, was a vehicle for good throughout the world.

Rather that look upon those who pay homage to the British crown/monarch as people who are victims of a slave mentality kow-towing to or fawning and gushing over the "Bitch of Babylon*" and her brood, in an unthinking and demeaning to themselves manner, as both the historically real and current sybolic head and source of all the evils of colonialism/imperialism,

rather they ought to pay due respect to the crown/monarch of Britain as the British Empire, its colonialism/imperialism and crown/monarch were the cause of all good, not evil throughout the "Empire on which the sun never set."

Is that what you believe?

Is that the moral corner you intended to logically paint yourself in?

*"Bitch of Babylon" is an expression used by Jamaican Rastafarians to refer to queen Lizzie and the sociey she lives in.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And also, I am not sure if you just don't understand my meaning, or whether this is a deliberate attempt to pick apart and twist the comments of others rather than engage the issue in a direct and legitimate way.

It is not I who avoids attempting to engage the issue in a direct and legitimate way.

It is you, sir.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Whatever it is, it pisses me off,...

Do you want to know what it is about me that pisses you off?

I'll tell you:

It's because I make you look into the mirror and force you to face your own bullshit.

That's why.

 

6079_Smith_W

Actually, Frmrsldr,

I am aware of all those distinctions, and that there are a lot of kinds of freedom and bondage. The fact that I do not agree with you on some issues does not mean that I do not understand how you see much of this.

As I said already, I made the comment to point out the irony in your using the word "slavery" in that way. Since you seem to think the monarchy controls everything up here then in your eyes we were actually ordered by our "slavekeeper" to stop keeping people in bondage as actual chattel - objects without human legal protection to be bought, sold, or disposed of however the people who think they own them see fit. You know - not torture or abuse or underground slavery or authoritarianism,  but the institution of slavery as legally recognized by some governments.

By contrast, Americans who did not have another country (you seem to think this is the monarch) to tell them what to do enjoyed the freedom to continue to use that nasty old institution.

And what pisses me off? In case I didn't say the word irony enough times, I was making a joke, Frmrsldr. Too bad you didn't get it it , and instead went off on whatever that weird pedantic argument was supposed to mean.

But forget it. If the status of the monarchy is much less important han you think it is, I assure you your campaign to cast a ray of enlightenment into our poor addled minds and force us to "face our bullshit" is far, far less so.

(edit)

And just to get back to the OP (they even mention the out-and-out vitriol. Off with their heads!):

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/07/01/will-kate-visit-day2.html

 

Frmrsldr

6079_Smith_W wrote:

The fact that I do not agree with you on some issues does not mean that I do not understand how you see much of this.

You do not understand how I see things at all.

Here is your definition of slavery in post #64:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

... the British parliament used its political control over our countries (the colonies which later became Canada,...) to end the institution of REAL slavery.

Here is your definition of "REAL" slavery in post #66:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

... keeping people in bondage as actual chattel - objects without human legal protection to be bought, sold, or disposed of however the people who think they own them see fit. You know - not torture or abuse or underground slavery ... but the institution of slavery as legally recognized by some governments.

I understand your argument on slavery very well. I pointed this out when I wrote in post #65:

Frmrsldr wrote:

First, you limit slavery to the sale and bondage of human beings as the "REAL" slavery - institutionalized slavery ...

We know your argument on slavery. Repeating it isn't going to make it any stronger. Or better.

And that's to ignore the fact that your morally reprehensible narrow and exclusive definition of slavery argues that sex slaves, child soldiers and camp servants, people sold or forced to work in sweatshops, victims of arranged marriages, victims of abusive relationships and victims of institutionalized inequality are less "REAL" or worthy or that their suffering and the harm done to them is also less "REAL."

Linked from rabble:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/jun/12/slavery-inquiry-iain-duncan-sm...

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Since you seem to think the monarchy controls everything...

I hold no such thoughts:

My contention is this: that monarchy is hereditary and therefore is an unelected, unrepresentative, undemocratic and inegalitarian institution that dates back to the feudal era. In addition, as the (British) monarchy is not only the head of state of Britain but that of Canada as well, Canada also lacks full sovereignty. When have I ever strayed from this?

Monarchy is hereditary and therefore an inegalitarian institution that dates back to the feudal era.

The feudal era where it was deemed necessary and desirable that one's "superiors" in the form of royals governed over others. They held their position as "lord and master" by "divine right," it was ordained by god, the "laws of nature" and (entrenched) by human laws and conventions that the monarch and their heirs (their offspring, the "royal" family) were to inherit these powers, rights and priviledges. Everyone else was a vassal, serf, common (or a "commoner"), servant, inferior or slave. Couple the institutionalized inequality of a monarchic society with all the evils and atrocities of colonialism/imperialism the British Empire inflicted by its perpetrators in the name of the British crown/monarch: THAT is what those who fawn and gush all over the monarchy, the monarch and her grandchildren, are feting/celebrating.

I don't know if you are truly having difficulty understanding this

or whether it's a case of willful ignorance on your part

but if you've got comments, questions or concerns you wish me to address,

as I said, you're always welcome.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

... I assure you your campaign to cast a ray of enlightenment into our poor addled minds and force us to "face our bullshit"...

[Bolding added]

Do other babblers the courtesy of keeping such comments in the first person because when you go back to the original quote, it was you I was addressing. And no one else.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And what pisses me off? In case I didn't say the word irony enough times, I was making a joke, Frmrsldr.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And also, I am not sure if you just don't understand my meaning, or whether this is a deliberate attempt to pick apart and twist the comments of others rather than engage the issue in a direct and legitimate way. Whatever it is, it pisses me off,...

I can hardly wait to see the intellectual flailing and floundering you are going to do in your attempt to construe this as a "joke" in your response.

If you don't respond, then you've just had a face-to-face encounter with your own bullshit.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

... If the status of the monarchy is much less important [t]han you think...

Gee, if I repeat that mantra 1,000 times a day, what will that do, huh? Turn me into a (promonarchist) 'monbot' zombie? Unlike some people I know - of course no one on babble, though.

For some strange reason words and phrases like "useful idiot", "monarchy enabler", "monarchy=good", "royal family PR firm", "propaganda" and "conditioning" keep flashing before my mind's eye.

But enough of that, let's go back to the royals in the news:

Alexander Panetta and Benjamin Shingler, The Canadian Press wrote:

Dozens of Quebec sovereigntists were gathered outside the Sainte-Justine hospital, some carrying signs - both French and English - calling the royal couple "parasites."

There were also chants of, "Abandon the monarchy," while some cars passed by and honked in support of protesters.

... One pro-independence group issued a statement accusing the crown of committing "linguistic cleansing" against francophones. It cited the 1755 deportation of Acadians, the suppression of the "patriot" revolt of 1837-38, and other alleged sins including the Crown's approval of the 1982 Constitution that Quebec never accepted.

"A strong majority of Quebecers wish to get rid of the monarchy, an obsolete institution that reminds us of our nation's subordination to another nation," said the group Cap sur L'independance

One protester was an Ontario-born author, originally from Thunder Bay, who has become a prominent member of Quebec's independence movement over the last 30 years.

Robin Philpot said the monarchy stands for everything that is anti-democratic and he accused it of committing countless atrocities around the world - especially in French Canada.

http://royalwedding.globalnews.ca/News/Protesters_greet_Prince_William_a...

Quebecers do Canada proud.

 

6079_Smith_W

Frmrsldr wrote:

If you don't respond, then you've just had a face-to-face encounter with your own bullshit.

Sorry... no epiphany. The truth ray didn't work. Just mild annoyance and growing boredom.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Frmrsldr, you need to back off and find a less browbeating and hectoring way of posting and conversing with people you disagree with. This is not how people socially interact. 

Frmrsldr

Catchfire wrote:

This is not how people socially interact. 

That depends.

I am an outsider and a stranger here.

I don't know anybody.

Nor have I met anyone.

To me babble is an occasion or forum to exchange thoughts and ideas and perhaps some knowledge will be learned in the process.

I prefer it this way as one learns more through adversity than having people pat you on the back and say yes to everything you post because they personally know you and are your friend.

There isn't anyone I don't dislike, just some bad ideas, principles and concepts I have no empathy for.

I've had to deal all my life with injustice and people treating others in abysmal ways.

That is why I'm "mad as hell" and have this constant anger that is boiling away inside me and can be rather merciless towards lousy ideas or concepts.

On the other hand, and from your perspective:

If this is a case of people who know each other and may have met.

Then it may be a case of social interaction where friends are having a public conversation among themselves.

Frmrsldr

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Just mild annoyance and growing boredom.

Yeah, I don't blame you.

Yesterday's spectacle of crowds of Quebecers in Quebec City fawning and gushing over Kate and Villie and thus voluntarily reinforcing the inherited - or married into - (on the part of the royals) superior/master and inferior/peasant/serf/commoner/slave relationship created by the institution of the monarchy and its inegalitarian nature and entrenched by British and related subordinate involutarily inherited "Canadian" laws, was quite a letdown from the events the day before in Montreal.

The rest of the Canadian tour is now going to be a return to the predictable fawning and gushing in a demeaning and stomach-turning way we've come to expect.

I heard about the obscene public display of militarism and the military.

Well, no surprise really, the British monarch is Commander-in-Chief of Canada's military.

I heard about Canadian soldiers dressed in beaver pelt hats.

The beaver. This poor animal represents the colonialist/imperialist exploitation of Canada, its resources and peoples by the British Empire.

These Canadian soldiers also wear a red tunic - the uniform of the colonial soldier of the British Empire.

It seems about the only symbol that is truly Canadian and not something inherited from the British Empire is the maple leaf proudly displayed in your national flag.

Yet even here, a babbler expressed his opinion that he preferred the ensign over Canada's current national flag.

I also heard the Quebec unit, the "Van dooze" were on prominent display.

Canada's colonialist/imperialist past has met its colonialist/imperialist present.

The "Van dooze:" While Quebec's patriots of the past refused to participate in and opposed the Boer War, WW1 and WW2, these satraps and enablers of the British and American Empires and colonialism/imperialism have participated in the illegal war on the people of Afghanistan.

The people of Afghanistan.

Now there's a people who refuse to be occupied and subjugated (enslaved) by foreign empires. Whether it be Alexander the Great and the Greek Empire, Genghis Khan and the Mongolian Empire, Indian warrior princes and the Moghul Empire, Generals of the Persian Empire.

More recently, it was the Russian (communist) "Empire" (as described in Cold War terms by U.S.A. and NATO) and the British Empire.

The British stayed in Afghanistan for about 100 years, roughly from 1819 to 1919. By 1919, the British government realized what Obama is just beginning to admit publicly: that nations cannot afford empire. It's too expensive having the world's largest military with the latest weapons and equipment and having them stationed overseas to ever expand and defend a growing empire and to pay colonial administrators and our local propped up puppets to run the governments of the colonies and to engage in social engineering to rebuild and "improve" these countries when our own social services are suffering from a lack of funds and cutbacks.

Yes, in 1919 the British government realized the game of Empire and occupying Afghanistan wasn't worth the candle. British troops and colonial administrators came home like dogs with their tails between their legs.

Just like American, British, Canadian and NATO/ISAF countries' troops are doing now.

The last time the British left Afghanistan, the only visible sign that they were ever there are some crumbling headstones with English names on them to mark the graves of the British soldiers who died and were buried there.

Fascinating difference between Afghans, a fiercely independent peoples and (European settler) Canadians, isn't it?

Do you think there is something we can all learn from the Afghans?

Roscoe

I feel sorry for you. What I can learn from your increasingly erratic behaviour is to avoid being drawn into empty internet forum discussions populated by people with no friends and no lives who substitute internet rants for social interaction.

Step away from the mike and go smell a flower or something before your internet rage consumes you. Here's a hint: it isn't Will and Kate or the plight of ( insert oppressive issue here) you are "mad as hell" at. Go forth and become positive about something.

Todrick of Chat...

 

Frmsldr

Many Quebecor's served in WW1, WW2 and Afghanistan. Most of the Canadian generals in Afghanistan are from Quebec. They are not the peace loving people you believe they are. Much of Canada's war industry can be found in the provide of Quebec.

Van Doo soldiers in the Balkans raped numerous patients in a mental hospital in the early 1990s.

You should do some more research.

Frmrsldr

Todrick of Chatsworth wrote:
 

Frmsldr

Many Quebecor's served in WW1, WW2 and Afghanistan. Most of the Canadian generals in Afghanistan are from Quebec. They are not the peace loving people you believe they are. Much of Canada's war industry can be found in the provide of Quebec.

Van Doo soldiers in the Balkans raped numerous patients in a mental hospital in the early 1990s.

You should do some more research.

One word Toderick of Chatsworth:

Sellouts.

Just like the Afghan puppets like Hamid Karzai and his half brother Amed Wali Karzai whom we're propping up.

I never said all Quebecers were peace loving people as you seem to suggest.

There are people with good and bad intentions and who have done praiseworthy as well as reprehensible things no matter what culture you look at.

Naturally Herr Harper is going to promote and give prominent positions and tasks and put in the public spotlight his soldout, sychophantic, bootlicking satrap Quebec Generals:

1. Herr Harper guarantees their loyalty by making them his partners in crime.

2. Guarantees their loyalty by making the future of their careers, promotions, citations, commendations, honors etc., dependent on Herr Harper's whim and pleasure.

3. Herr Harper wants to politically milk Quebec for all its worth and in any way he can to ensure the Conservative Party of Canada maintains and increases its toehold in Quebec.

Frmrsldr

Roscoe wrote:

... people ... who substitute internet rants for social interaction.

I guess it depends on how you view things.

For you babble might be a social club where you chat with your friends.

For me babble is a gymnasium where I exercize my mind.

Roscoe wrote:

Step away from the mike and go smell a flower or something before your internet rage consumes you.

Trust me, the vast majority of my knowledge is based upon experiencing life first hand in the real world.

The anger that I have is not "internet rage." I've had it for as long as I can remember, so it isn't going to suddenly consume me now.

I spend very little time on the internet or reading books/textbooks.

That is why I seldom borrow arguments and theories from authors, the internet and other public intelligencia.

When I do, I clearly quote it verbatim. Usually it's from fellow babblers or articles/journalists.

The rest are my thoughts based on personal experience.

Todrick of Chat...

Frmsldr

You are very about labeling people.

Frmrsldr

Todrick of Chatsworth wrote:

Frmsldr You are very about labeling people.

Perhaps, in a driscriminating manner based on at least some evidence.

But not in a broadbrush prejudiced manner.

Such as all Afghans oppose our military attack, invasion, war and occupation of their country.

Or all Quebecers are peace lovers.

Or all Quebecers are antimonarchists.

Or all members of the Van Dooze are murder-rapists.

 

Caissa

How many final warnings shall he receive, Catchfire? In the best royalist spirit, I say "Off with his head!"

Roscoe

Caissa wrote:
How many final warnings shall he receive, Catchfire? In the best royalist spirit, I say "Off with his head!"

Are there not enough 'heads' missing already? I'm guessing a lot of these warnings are inspired by complaints from posters at the other end of a particular sparring match.

Roscoe

Frmrsldr wrote:

Roscoe wrote:

... people ... who substitute internet rants for social interaction.

I guess it depends on how you view things.

For you babble might be a social club where you chat with your friends.

For me babble is a gymnasium where I exercize my mind.

Roscoe wrote:

Step away from the mike and go smell a flower or something before your internet rage consumes you.

Trust me, the vast majority of my knowledge is based upon experiencing life first hand in the real world.

The anger that I have is not "internet rage." I've had it for as long as I can remember, so it isn't going to suddenly consume me now.

I spend very little time on the internet or reading books/textbooks.

That is why I seldom borrow arguments and theories from authors, the internet and other public intelligencia.

When I do, I clearly quote it verbatim. Usually it's from fellow babblers or articles/journalists.

The rest are my thoughts based on personal experience.

I stumbled in here looking to see if Fidel had unflounced yet. When you spend a couple of 100+ poster threads waxing eloquent on a young couple who's only sin is to be popular, its no longer a gymnasium but a room with the door handle on the outside.

I see a lot of middle-aged guys who are angry all the time. I think the anger has a lot to do with time passing them by, missed opportunities, a burden of responsibilities etc. They take it out on everyone around them. I could easily have been one of them but I realised that in order to enjoy life, one must focus one's vitality and not squander it willy-nilly on negativism.

Some folks are natural pessimists and some natural optimists. I consider myself an optimist but I need to work at it all the time or I'll descend into natural cynicism. Laughter is the best medicine.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I noticed the CBC yesterday repeated throughout the day that the protests by "300 people" in Quebec City against the royal's visit was effectively drowned out by the cheers of the pro-royal visit crowd.

melovesproles

Only sin is to be popular?  Everytime I've heard Willy speak he's schilling for the War in Afghanistan.  It seriously annoys me how our media is pulling out all the stops to saddle another generation with such a reactionary institution.  It does make me a little angry.  This made me laugh though.  What a twit.

 

Frmrsldr

Roscoe wrote:

I stumbled in here looking to see if Fidel had unflounced yet. When you spend a couple of 100+ poster threads waxing eloquent on... its no longer a gymnasium but a room with the door handle on the outside.

I see a lot of middle-aged guys who are angry all the time. I think the anger has a lot to do with time passing them by, missed opportunities, a burden of responsibilities etc. They take it out on everyone around them. I could easily have been one of them but I realised that in order to enjoy life, one must focus one's vitality and not squander it willy-nilly on negativism.

Some folks are natural pessimists and some natural optimists. I consider myself an optimist but I need to work at it all the time or I'll descend into natural cynicism. Laughter is the best medicine.

Um,

just a reminder.

The original purpose of this thread was to poke fun of this "young couple" in a tabloid journalism way.

Roscoe wrote:

... a young couple who's only sin is to be popular,

Villie's the second generation (after his pappa, bonnie prince Charles) heir apparent to the British throne.

A title, position, institution with attendant powers, rights and priviledges, etc., that is hereditary - unearned, unelected, unrepresentative, undemocratic, inegalitarian and undeserved - something that dates back to the feudal era. Something that in this day and age should be relegated to children's bedtime fairytale books and Disney animated movies.

So the great chimera and shiboleth here is the unsubstantiated and unearned popularity of this couple.

What great humanitarian, philanthropic or praiseworthy acts have they done to deserve this popularity?

ABSOLUTELY NONE. Right?

It's not like they're Paris Hilton or Charlie Sheen or other Hollywood actors, "personalities" or musicians. People who at least earn their money and popularity (debatable) by being "professional" entertainers (debatable.) - (The way people fawn and gush over and buy tabloid journal rags over these characters is another thing I'll never understand.Money mouthTongue out)

The reason why people and the media fawn and gush all over this couple in a self-degrading/demeaning and stomach-turning way is simply because they're royals.

Which as I've said before and a number of others have said in the most recent posts, is the result of the British monarchy/royal family's PR firm's and FCM's (Fawning Corporate Media's) propaganda/conditioning/brainwashing mantra "monarchy=good" that has and looks like it will continue to tend to the perpetuation (continuation) of the British and all remaining monarchy.

Caissa

As a parent, articles like this giving me a lump in the throat and a tear in my eye.

CBC wrote:

Kate Middleton wore a jeweled tiara at her wedding, but it was a Diamond of another sort who captivated the Duchess of Cambridge in Calgary.

Diamond Marshall, a six-year-old girl battling cancer, wanted to meet a real princess after watching the royal wedding from her hospital bed. She got her wish on Thursday, thanks to the Children's Wish Foundation and an invitation from Alberta's office of the Lieutenant Governor.

Diamond, accompanied by her father Lyall and step mother Danielle, greeted Kate and Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, as they arrived in Alberta's largest city.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/07/08/royals-kate-cancer-girl-w...

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

A CBC observer said yesterday that Kate is changing several times a day into designer clothes during this visit. That yellow dress yesterday was the hot topic, blowing in the wind as it were - someone - maybe Rosie Barton - said "now that's just naughty!". Laughing

melovesproles

One of my all time favorite movie scenes is in 'Safe' with Julianne Moore, where she's at her daughter's birthday party and all the mom's are commenting on the little girl's costume.  "Look, she's a princess" says one.  "It's very good" says the other.  "Very realistic" Julianne Moore agrees.  Hahah.  That scene makes me laugh out loud everytime. 

Frmrsldr

Frmrsldr wrote:

[Monarchy:] A title, position, institution with attendant powers, rights and priviledges, etc., that is hereditary - unearned, unelected, unrepresentative, undemocratic, inegalitarian and undeserved - something that dates back to the feudal era. Something that in this day and age should be relegated to children's bedtime fairytale books and Disney animated movies.

Follow the swinging pendulum with your eyes. You are getting sleepy. Very sleepy. Your eyelids are becoming heavy.

Now repeat after me, "monarchy=good, monarchy=good, monarchy=goooooooo...."

Frmrsldr

Take your average babbler.

Normally a rational and logical person.

Yet when it comes to monarchy (some) babblers become emotional and even defensive about the institution and its family.

Why?

Have you ever seen people affected by years, even decades of propaganda/conditioning/brainwashing starting at a very early age?

Caissa wrote:

As a parent, articles like this giving me a lump in the throat and a tear in my eye.

CBC wrote:

Kate Middleton wore a jeweled tiara at her wedding, but it was a Diamond of another sort who captivated the Duchess of Cambridge in Calgary.

Diamond Marshall, a six-year-old girl battling cancer, wanted to meet a real princess after watching the royal wedding from her hospital bed. She got her wish on Thursday, thanks to the Children's Wish Foundation and an invitation from Alberta's office of the Lieutenant Governor.

Diamond, accompanied by her father Lyall and step mother Danielle, greeted Kate and Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, as they arrived in Alberta's largest city.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/07/08/royals-kate-cancer-girl-w...

I believe I just have.

It has been said that even the sound of Rasputin's voice on the telephone could soothe and stop the bleeding of the Tsaraevich.

takeitslowly

Honestly, I believe most good people in the world would do what the couple did to this little girl, if given the chance to be on a royal trip and have a job that involves mainly waving your hands and giving smiles.Normal people give a gesture of kindness everyday. I guess the only reason this is so touching for some is because they are royalties and didn't have to do anything. But I personally do not find any of their behaviors that really amazing. They are human being and act like one, just like you and me.

melovesproles

Frmersldr, yeah my dad is great example of this.  He grew up in Britain and moved over here as a teenager.  Very leftwing when it comes to seeing the US for what it is, yet get him on the subject of the British empire and suddenly things are a little bit different.  Isn't a hawk or anything but deinitely a little nostalgic for what in his view was a more 'civilized' empire.  A lot of my teachers growing up were pretty obvious in sharing a similar bias.  This flies in the face of actual history.  It's definitely a big part of the Canadian identity and what lets a lot of people get away with thinking Canadian wars and war profiteering is somehow exceptional in it's 'humanitarianism'.  Watching the media in high gear propaganda mode during this 'royal visit' has been really enlightening.  If you polled Canadians my age for how many were monarchists, it certainly wouldn't match up with the media perspective we've had foisted on us.  I hope we do get a referendum.  Even with the propaganda machine firing on all cylinders, the legitimacy of this reactionary insitution is paper thin.  Canada needs to grow up. 

Frmrsldr

takeitslowly wrote:

I guess the only reason this is so touching for some is because they are royalties and didn't have to do anything.

This whole thing was contrived and manipulated as soon as the monarchy's PR firm and the Fawning Corporate Media (FCM) vultures 'smelled' a young sick girl in the audience. It's like one of those old-time fundamentalist revival public big tent gatherings or televangelist spectacles where the lord supposedly works through the minister to help heal the sick before an amazed and believing audience.

"Get the sick girl with a misty-eyed Kate on the set."

"Make sure they're right there in the center."

"Get plenty of photos."

"Get the concerned and loving parents on the set."

"Make sure you interview them."

Such pictures make a good photo op.

Such a story makes good copy.

Such symbolism, images and sound bytes for the monarchy and its PR firm are part of the propaganda/conditioning/brainwashing that will perpetuate the British monarchy for another few years or decades.

For the FCM it accomplishes the same purpose as they are in cahoots with the establishment - in this case the monarchy.

For the FCM it also means increased profits in increased sales of newpapers and magazines through exploiting people:

People love it when their empathy and sorrow are played (or more accurately preyed) upon.

People love what is known in the business as the "Cuteness Factor."

This is all about exploitation.

The real story here is how the monarchy's PR firm and the FCM exploited this sick girl, her poor parents and the public at large.

Isn't one of rabble's purposes in life to be an alternative to the FCM?

 

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

Those responsible for PR, communications and event planning of the Canadian royal visit certainly made sure nothing as what follows was on their schedule of events:

Quote:
The Duke of Cambridge is playing in The Foundation Polo Challenge at the Santa Barbara Polo & Racquet Club.The stop is part of William and wife Catherine's three-day trip to the region. The royal couple arrived in Los Angeles on Friday...

Tickets to the event, which benefit The American Friends of the Foundation of Prince William and Prince Harry Inc., reportedly cost between $400 and $4,000.The polo players also paid a fee to take the field alongside the prince.

http://www.mydesert.com/article/20110709/NEWS01/107090322/Prince-pair-va...|newswell|text|Frontpage|s

Is there any sport out there that underscores wealth and priviledge more than polo? Quite the contrast from playing shinny in Yellowknife.

Unionist

Caissa wrote:

As a parent, articles like this giving me a lump in the throat and a tear in my eye.

Don't leave those symptoms for too long. I can recommend a competent ENT specialist.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

laine lowe wrote:
Is there any sport out there that underscores wealth and priviledge more than polo? Quite the contrast from playing shinny in Yellowknife.

No kidding. It's almost cartoonish in its decadence and pomp. Horses? Really? I always wonder about the people who play with, say, Prince Charles in Britain. Do they like to play? Or do they show up just so Chuck will have someone to play with? Kind of like that guy who squeezes toothpaste on to the royal toothbrush, but with more equipment.

 

Pages